Theos-Talk Archives (May 2009 Message tt00532)

--- In theos-talk@yahoogroups.com, MKR <mkr777@...> wrote:
>
> There are many reviews about the Radha Rajagopal's book on Krishnamurti
> which was published after the death of Jiddu Krishnamurti.
> .
> I just ran into an interesting feedback from some one who lived with K,
> Rajagopal, Rosalind and Radha in 1940s and I am sure it would interest many.
> Here is the letter.
> .
> MKR
>Thanks you for this letter.  The impact of an eye witness is far greater than all the usual beliefs, prejudices & opinions that dominate us.

Brian Parry
> +++
> .
> In the 1940s, Bill Quinn spent a year at Arya Vihara in Ojai, working in the
> garden. K was living there at that time and they often tended the garden -
> including cow, chickens and bees - together. Bill knew Alan Watts, was one
> of the founders of the Esalen Institute in Big Sur, California in the 1960s,
> and worked on the first Krishnamurti Index of subjects that later became the
> KFT's three-volume Index of all of the audio and videotapes. He died in Ojai
> in the mid-1990s.
> .
> +
> .
> +
> .
> April 20th 1993
> .
> Dear Friedrich,
> .
> Through the years Radha sent her manuscript to various publishers, and by
> chance the readers of two publishers to whom the book was assigned for
> evaluation were friends of mine. I deliberately read it once in one
> continuous effort so as to get an overall impression. I have not read the
> version published in England, and it's likely that changes have been made
> and editing done. What follows is based on my recollection of my first and
> only reading. I suspect that Radha is merely the spokesman for her parents.
> It has always seemed to me most unfortunate she was put in this position.
> She was not a direct witness to the alleged intimacy between K and R, but
> was told about it when she was a young woman by her mother. It is
> understandable that Radha, having been brought up in a seemingly magical
> world, should have been traumatised and embittered by Rosalind's claims.
> It's notable that early in the story it was K that Radha adored, like a
> father; yet she later is so condemnatory.
> .
> Having lived with the family during the period the affair was supposed to be
> taking place, I can attest there was a great intimacy between K and
> Rosalind, and I felt very much a part of a family which included them and
> Radha, and in which I was in daily close contact. It was an extraordinarily
> warm and simple life we had, extremely open so far as I could see, and so
> unconflicted I felt an absolute absence of self-consciousness. Rosalind
> appeared to me to be utterly generous and loving, and I count her among the
> dearest friends of my life. I felt less at ease with Raja, somewhat
> intimidated by his force and brilliance, but he too was warm and outgoing to
> me. However, he was seldom at Arya Vihara in those years, spending most of
> his time in Hollywood as he did. With Radha and David, her cousin, children
> then, I had a simple affectionate rapport. I must point out that I was a
> very young man at the time.
> .
> Since I felt part of this family, its breakup and the alienation of Raja
> from Rosalind and both from K, and the mystery surrounding it through the
> years, had disturbed me greatly. I was deeply affected by the book, and
> among my responses was a grief for everybody involved - so much pain! It
> seems to me, however, that one cannot form an opinion on the basis of the
> book about the allegations of an affair between K and Rosalind. The letters
> that are said to support this claim are unavailable. It's hard to see how
> one can presume to know what goes on between any two people. When a
> relationship is conflicted, a third person can know only the statements of
> the two parties, which are inevitably biased.
> .
> I feel strongly that it is important to establish the truth about K's life,
> and to affirm his humanity. I deplore the widespread efforts to mythologize
> and deify him, because doing so makes it impossible for people to recognise
> their kinship with him, and puts him in an abstract sphere, as a sort of
> icon. When I read the book it seemed to me possible that there had been such
> a relationship. Given the un-worldliness of both K and R, their innocence,
> such a thing could have come about through simple proximity and affection,
> as such things often do. Honoring the Rosalind I had known in earlier days,
> I even felt glad for K that he might have had such a relationship. And if
> there were an affair, the secrecy is understandable, given the social
> climate of those days. It would not have been K's concern alone to be either
> open or discreet: the lives of others were involved: Rosalind, Raja and
> Radha, Also, they might have felt that it was no one else's business.
> .
> What is lamentable to me about the book is that its motivation seems to be
> vindictiveness. To me, unfortunately, the book makes Rosalind, not K, to
> appear shabby and small. In part this is the effect of objectifying and
> blaming K and not going into Rosalind's character in depth. I think she was
> a much larger person, and for a long time I wanted to talk to Radha and try
> and dissuade her from publication for this reason. But I had not the
> courage; my old affection for her and her mother made the prospect of such
> an encounter too painful. The book seems to me naive in many ways, and to
> reflect little selfknowledge on the part of the Rajagopals. If there was
> such an affair in which Rosalind suffered so much, she was certainly also
> responsible. She was an adult. She was moreover a strong person and rather
> dominated K, to my mind, when I lived with them. The tone suggests a jilted
> lover. And through the years after their breakup, I had many hours-long
> conversations with Rosalind in which she poured out her hurt and rage. She
> was simply obsessed. I also talked to K about the breakup, and offered to be
> an intermediary. He said, however, "No! It is finished."
> .
> It seems to me that Rosalind's story, whether the allegations about K are
> true or not, is a common and doleful human tragedy, and my response is more
> compassionate than anything else. It's a story of how possessiveness,
> jealousy, suspicion and self-righteousness can destroy affection and lead to
> life long bitterness and a desire for revenge. It not only destroys
> affection, but the person. So many people wanted to possess K! I knew well
> another woman who was remarkably close to K, and I happened to be with her
> during a time when she simply went to pieces and became bedridden for days,
> raging and torn. She later came to literally hate him for some years, and
> did some real mischief. I think that when K went to India in 1947 a new life
> for him began when he met some wonderful minds, soon to include Pupul
> Jayakar and her family. Rosalind at that time stayed in California and was
> fully occupied with the newly formed Happy Valley School. At this time, I
> suspect, the Rajagopals began to lose control of K.
> .
> As for the allegations about Nandini, I don't take them seriously. It's well
> known that she and K had an extraordinary affinity, but to assume that this
> was sexually based seems unwarranted. K moved many people and was capable of
> a great intimacy with those who were open to him. I'm afraid Rosalind was
> overcome by suspicion.
> .
> 
> Bill Quinn
> 
> +
> 
> 
> [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
>