Theos-Talk Archives (June 2008 Message tt00129)

Thanks Ramadoss
My sentiments exactly are reflected in this paragraph
"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."


--- On Fri, 6/13/08, mkr777@gmail.com <mkr777@gmail.com> wrote:

From: mkr777@gmail.com <mkr777@gmail.com>
Subject: Re: Theos-World J. Krishnamurti and beautiful Rosalind Rajagopal
To: theos-talk@yahoogroups.com
Date: Friday, June 13, 2008, 10:10 PM






I posted a msg on K which may be of interest. Here is the link.

http://www.theos- l.com/archives/ 199701/tl00737. html

mkr

On 6/13/08, Anand <AnandGholap@ gmail.com> 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]