Theos-Talk Archives (June 2008 Message tt00116)

Let me add.. In theosophical circles, sexual issue is a serious and
sensitive one. In the past, there have been instances where members have
paid a price for sexual indiscretions.

mkr

On Fri, Jun 13, 2008 at 7:35 AM, Anand <AnandGholap@gmail.com> wrote:

>   Hello MKR,
> Your message is interesting. Maybe others will find it useful, so I am
> pasting it here.
>
>
> http://theos-l.com/archives/199701/tl00737.html
> MKR's message
> -----------------------
> "Leadbeater-Theosophy Model" and Krishnamurti
>
> Jan 24, 1997 10:08 PM
> by M K Ramadoss
>
> Hi
>
> After HPB passed away, the model advocated in the Theosophical Society
> for spiritual growth is that of non-meat eating, non-smoking, non-fur
> wearing, celibacy (?), etc. etc. and could be for convenience called the
> Leadbeater-Theosophy Model. We all agree that all these are conducive to a
> healthy life.
>
> The ironic fact is that when the Real Founders selected individuals to
> launch the modern Theosophical Movement, they did *NOT* select ones
> fitting
> the Leadbeater-Theosophy spiritual Model. HPB and HSO ate meat and both
> smoked. (They also several times when travelling in India, just lived on
> bananas and so they were flexible.) If they were to miraculously reappear
> today, they would not be allowed to live either at Adyar or Wheaton
> and eat
> meat or smoke. I am not advocating that the present restrictions should be
> lifted at either place.
>
> What I am trying to understand is whether in attempting to force
> serious
> Theosophists into the Leadbeater-Theosophy spirituality model (even though
> fully voluntarily) if the priorities got mixed up.
>
> This issue has been brought into focus by the publication of the
> book by
> Radha Sloss on Krishnamurti. Sex and violence sells. The book focused
> on the
> physical relationship K had with her mother Rosalind Rajagopal and
> this when
> viewed from the traditional Leadbeater-Theosophy spiritual model shocked
> many who were brought up in that tradition. The book was very widely
> reviewed and a review appeared in TSA's Quest Magazine.
>
> In a recent book by Mary Lutyens titled "Krishnamurti and The
> Rajagopals", she addresses this issue head-on in the very first page. As
> this may be a topic of interest for consideration of some here, I am
> excerpting it.
>
> MK Ramadoss
>
> ==============================================
>
> This is a personal reply to Lives in the Shadow with J Krishnamurti by
> Radha Rajagopal Sloss (London, 1991).
>
> The publishers of this book claim that it was written "in a spirit of
> tenderness, fairness, objective inquiry and no little remorse", yet the
> author rarely misses an opportunity to belittle Krishnamurti; it contains
> many misstatements of fact, false inferences and snide innuendoes, and
> it is
> heavily biased in an attempt to justify the author's parents at
> Krishnamurti's expense.
>
> Radha Sloss (RS in future) has taken such pains to make out that K
> (as I
> shall now call him) was a liar, that anything said by K's friends as
> to what
> he told them can, RS implies, be dismissed as a lie. The author even goes
> so far as to write that my mother, K's oldest friend, who had known
> him from
> 1911 until her death in 1964, had called him "a congenital liar". I will
> never believe this without written proof I knew her feelings for him too
> well. We are supposed to assume that everything Krishnamurti said
> which the
> Rajagopals objected to was a lie whereas everything unsubstantiated they
> choose to say is the truth.
>
> RS's main accusation against Krishnamurti is that he had a physical
> relationship for many years with her mother, Rosalind Rajagopal, while
> maintaining "a chaste image". The physical relationship is not in dispute
> and should not come as a shock. It certainly did not surprise or shock me
> when K told me about it. I knew about his relationship with Rosalind
> before
> I wrote the last volume of my biography but did not realize that Rosalind
> wanted her adultery broadcast to the world. I have always stressed that
> Krishnamurti was physically a perfectly normal man.
>
> As for its being a secret affair, was K supposed to go about saying
> that
> Rosalind was his mistress? It was her concern as much as his. And he
> never
> "presented" himself as being celibate. According to the tenets of
> Leadbeater-Theosophy, celibacy was essential for any aspirant to the
> Path of
> Discipleship but K broke away entirely from Theosophy and its tenets
> in 1929
> and thereafter often spoke publicly against celibacy. Here are a few
> quotations from his published talks to prove this point: "So-called
> holy men
> have maintained that you cannot come near God if you indulge in sex,
> therefore they push it aside although they are eaten up with it. But by
> denying sexuality they put out their eyes and cut out their tongues
> for they
> deny the whole beauty of the earth. They have starved their hearts
> and minds; they are dehydrated human beings; they have banished beauty
> because beauty is associated with woman." And again: "I think we should
> understand what love and chastity are. The vow of chastity is not
> chastity
> at all, for below the words the craving goes on and trying to suppress
> it in
> different ways, religious and otherwise, is a form of ugliness which,
> in its
> very essence, is unchaste. The chastity of the monk, with his vows and
> denials, is essentially worldliness which is unchaste. All forms of
> resistance build a wall of separateness which turns life into a
> battlefield;
> and so life becomes not chaste at all." And yet again: "To deny sex is
> another form of brutality; it is there, it is a fact. When we are
> intellectual slaves, endlessly repeating what others have said, when
> we are
> following, obeying, imitating, then a whole avenue of life is closed; when
> action is merely a mechanical repetition and not a free movement, then
> there
> is no release; when there is this incessant urge to fulfil, to be, then we
> are emotionally thwarted, there is a blockage. So sex becomes the one
> issue
> which is our very own, which is not second-hand. And in the act of sex
> there is a forgetting of oneself, one's problems and one's fears. In that
> act there is no self at all."
>
> In answer to a question he was asked at a public meeting, "Is it
> possible
> for a man and a woman to live together, to have sex and children, without
> all the turmoil, bitterness and conflict in such a relationship?" K said,
> "Can't you fall in love and not have a possessive relationship? I love
> someone and she loves me and we get married-that is all perfectly
> straightforward and simple, in that there is no conflict at all. (When we
> say we get married I might just as well say we decide to live together.)
> Can't one have that without the other? Without the tail, as it were,
> necessarily following? Can't two people be in love and both be so
> intelligent and so sensitive that there is freedom and an absence of a
> centre that makes conflict? Conflict is not in the feeling of being in
> love. The feeling of being in love is utterly without conflict. There is
> no loss of energy in being in love. The loss of energy Is in the
> tail-jealousy, possessiveness, suspicion, doubt, the fear of losing that
> love, the constant demand for reassurance and security. Surely it must be
> possible to function in a sexual relationship with someone you love
> without
> the nightmare which usually follows. Of course it is."
>
> Are these the words of a man pretending to be celibate? People who are
> disturbed and disillusioned by the fact that K had a physical affair
> should
> inquire of themselves whether they have not been projecting on him
> their own
> conventional image of what "a holy man" should be.
>
> What K had to experience with Rosalind Rajagopal after some years was
> "the tail". She became jealous, possessive and suspicious, thus ruining
> what had once been a beautiful relationship.
>
> The question of whether Rajagopal was deceived or not and the
> pregnancies
> and abortions will be gone into later, as will the most monstrous of the
> accusations made against K, those to do with the "process".
>
> The strangest thing about RS's book is the Rajagopals' lack of interest
> in K's teaching, their absence of all mystical sense and knowledge of the
> true nature of the extraordinary being they lived with for so many years,
> thus trivializing his story to the level of their own triviality. To
> realize this it is necessary to touch again on those parts of K's
> early life
> where RS has often gone badly astray. (A detailed account of K's life up
> till Mrs Besant's death in 1932, taken from original sources in the Adyar
> archives and K's own letters, is given in The Years of awakening.
>
> ------------------------------------------------
>
>
> >
> >
> > On 6/13/08, Anand <AnandGholap@...> wrote:
> > >
> > > These passages are taken from this webpage.
> > > http://www.alpheus.org/html/articles/thopv/kandwt.html
> > >
> > > Here are the passages.
> > > ------------------------------
> > > Radha Rajagopal Sloss
> > >
> > > Radha Rajagopal Sloss dropped a little bomb in the Krishnamurti
> > > circles in 1991 by alleging that her mother, Rosalind Rajagopal, the
> > > wife of Krishnamurti's former friend, manager and publisher,
> > > Desikacharya Rajagopal, had a secret love affair with Krishnamurti
> > > from 1932 until approximately 1957. This revelation, now admitted to
> > > be true by the Krishnamurti Foundation of America, might have done
> > > irreparable damage to Krishnamurti's image as a celibate, but as
> > > physical love is not contradictory to his teachings, the disclosure
> > > will probably soon be considered irrelevant.
> > > More important and possibly damaging is Sloss' allegation about
> > > Krishnamurti's involvement in the termination of Rosalind's third
> > > pregnancy by Krishnamurti and the observations of Sloss and others
> > > about his behavior in the Krishnamurti-Rajagopal feud over funds, real
> > > estate, and archives. According to Sloss the real cause of the fight
> > > was Krishnamurti's fear about "what would happen to his public image
> > > if letters and statements in his own handwriting should ever come to
> > > light. He wished to acquire control over these archives by whatever
> > > means necessary." (75) This alleged obsession drove Krishnamurti to
> > > maligning Rajagopal, and to instigating a lawsuit accusing Rajagopal
> > > of mismanaging funds. (76) Some, who were close to both men, and had
> > > knowledge of the case, tried, in vain, to mend fences. Sloss
> > > reproduced their letters with their observations: "One day, history
> > > will reveal everything; but the division in Krishnamurti himself will
> > > cast a very dark shadow on all he has said or written. Because the
> > > first thing the readers will say, is: `If he cannot live it, who
> can?'"
> > > This last statement was echoed in another letter: "It has been obvious
> > > to me Krishnaji is not living his own teaching, that he has been
> > > making war." An explanation for this was offered by Sloss, which is
> > > similar to Nethercot's view of Krishnamurti: "Krishna was more than
> > > one person." She does not elaborate the statement, but rather
> > > illustrates it. She wrote that within a short time-span Rosalind, who
> > > also tried to mediate between Krishnamurti and Rajagopal, experienced
> > > Krishnamurti first as "absolutely impervious to her words, withdrawn
> > > and haughty" and ten days later as "loving and appeared willing to
> > > talk" and wanting to "try to straighten things out." She found talking
> > > to "two Krishnas," a "strange and unsettling experience."
> > > Krishnamurti's reaction to criticism of a perceived dichotomy between
> > > his words and his deeds can be found in conversations he had with
> > > trustees of the Krishnamurti Foundation of America in 1972. According
> > > to a booklet published by the same foundation, he made it clear in
> > > these conversations, that "the desire for consistency between the
> > > teacher and the teachings simply mirrors the conditioning of the
> > > questioner." Questioning the relationship between a teacher and his
> > > teachings from the point of view of a hypothetical
> > > "man in the street," Krishnamurti said: "I'm not interested in what
> > > the Buddha was when he was a young man, whether he had sex, no sex,
> > > drugs or no drugs. I'm not interested. What I am interested in is what
> > > he is saying?"
> > > "Just... share into his teaching so that I can lead a different kind
> > > of life... I am only interested in the teaching. Nothing else--who you
> > > are, who you're not. Whether you're real or honest. It is my life that
> > > I am concerned with, not with your life..." Coming back to addressing
> > > the person to whom he was talking directly, he said: "How do you know
> > > he is honest or dishonest?" "How do you know whether what he is saying
> > > is out of his own life or he is inventing? Inventing in the big sense?
> > > Or he's leading a double life?" "I would say `Please, leave the
> > > personality alone.'"
> > >
> > > The question might arise whether Krishnamurti was sincere in this
> > > conversation or was applying preventive damage-control. As we have
> > > seen, Krishnamurti's reaction to such a question would probably be
> > > challenging the questioner about his own conditioning, and dismissing
> > > the issue as irrelevant. To this answer the same skepticism about
> > > Krishnamurti's sincerity might be rejoined. This locks the discussion
> > > in a solid stalemate, which is anyway the logical conclusion of a
> > > reciprocated ad hominem argument.
> > > -----------------------------------------
> > >
> > >
> > >
> >
> >
> > [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
> >
>
>  
>


[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]