[Date Prev] [Date Next] [Thread Prev] [Thread Next]

J. Krishnamurti and beautiful Rosalind Rajagopal

Jun 13, 2008 02:41 AM
by Anand

These passages are taken from this webpage.

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Krishnamurti first as "absolutely impervious to her words, withdrawn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.

[Back to Top]

Theosophy World: Dedicated to the Theosophical Philosophy and its Practical Application