Theos-Talk Archives (June 2008 Message tt00128)

I have read what JK had to say about Sex in First and Last Freedom and nothing there contradicts his actions.???
 
Cass

--- On Fri, 6/13/08, christinaleestemaker <christinaleestemaker@yahoo.com> wrote:

From: christinaleestemaker <christinaleestemaker@yahoo.com>
Subject: Theos-World Re: J. Krishnamurti and beautiful Rosalind Rajagopal
To: theos-talk@yahoogroups.com
Date: Friday, June 13, 2008, 9:58 PM






One thing I can say and see, that most theosophists are extraordinary 
hypocrites.

--- In theos-talk@yahoogro ups.com, "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]