on January 12, 2003
Radha Rajagopal Sloss's unique book is something of an unofficial biography of 20th century philosopher J. Krishnamurti and the events surrounding his career as a religious/philosophical teacher. The daughter of Rosalind Williams Rajagopal and husband D. Rajagopal, Radha Rajagopal Sloss's book is not a sordid expose, it is not graphic or insulting. It is simply a sincere account of her very real experiences growing up in amazing circumstances among amazing people. There is a lot of information here which isn't included in "official" biographies of philosopher J. Krishnamurti, which helps the reader get a better idea of the politics and humanness which even great men may be affected by. Author Sloss in fact, mentioned this tendancy of official biographies to ignore or excuse certain parts of Krishnamurti's life as a reason for penning this work.
Some of the controversy this book generated is due to the fact that certain students and followers of Krishnamurti believe that he was a living example of a perfect human. This volume disspells that myth, indeed, he looks quite human throughout this writing. It was interesting to find how Krishnamurti dealt with some of his biggest stressors, including financial disagreements with friend D. Rajagopal, and the pregnancy (by him) of his dear lover Rosalind Williams Rajagopal. Radha describes her love of "Krinsh" (Krishnamurti), who was like a second father to her, and how his increasing unwillingness to deal with problems damaged many relationships and people. Included are numerous letters to and from Krishnamurti, D. Rajagopal and Rosaling Rajagopal, and numerous other individuals who were active on the Theosophical movement or Krishnamurti's teachings. A very worthwhile read for anyone with an interest in history, philosophy, or the full history of J. Krishnamurti.
Some of the controversy this book generated is due to the fact that certain students and followers of Krishnamurti believe that he was a living example of a perfect human. This volume disspells that myth, indeed, he looks quite human throughout this writing. It was interesting to find how Krishnamurti dealt with some of his biggest stressors, including financial disagreements with friend D. Rajagopal, and the pregnancy (by him) of his dear lover Rosalind Williams Rajagopal. Radha describes her love of "Krinsh" (Krishnamurti), who was like a second father to her, and how his increasing unwillingness to deal with problems damaged many relationships and people. Included are numerous letters to and from Krishnamurti, D. Rajagopal and Rosaling Rajagopal, and numerous other individuals who were active on the Theosophical movement or Krishnamurti's teachings. A very worthwhile read for anyone with an interest in history, philosophy, or the full history of J. Krishnamurti.
on August 20, 2001
I read this book many years ago and was quite shattered by it. It paints a vastly different picture of Krishnamurti the man than the one we are presented in the comparitively hagiographical accounts of Lutyens et al. However over time my view has changed. Krishnamurti never encouraged followers or worshippers of himself or anyone else. He never extolled chastity as an ideal and had a relatively liberal attitude to sexual relations. So I no longer feel that this account makes him a hypocrite. Also the author is plainly, clearly biased. She has an ax to grind and a score to settle. This, obviously, affects the entire account. Finally, however, the lesson is - don't project your ideal of perfection on ANYONE. It is reassuring for us to have a hero, someone we can tell ourselves has 'made it' and whose accomplishments we can hope to emulate. Well, don't! Krishnamurti himself always deprecated this. Much or even most of what he taught still stands. Just don't expect anything from it - which is a major part of the teaching. The hard part of modern spirituality is NOT to have beliefs WITHOUT falling into nihilism or materialism. This book is part of that hard teaching. There is the 'middle way' between the extremes of adulation, on one hand, and cynicism, on the other. This is what we must find. [If that sounds Buddhist, it is.]
on August 27, 2007
Radha Sloss wrote this book primarily to expose Krishnamurti's affair with her Mother, Rosalind Rajagopal, therefore if someone is looking to learn more about K's life, this book will not provide him/her with much insight. It is obvious that Radha is basically a spokesperson for her Mother and her attitude towards Krishnamurti, though he was like a Father to her, turns into contempt and resentment as the affair begins to fall apart. Rosalind's letter exchange with K. is not available for legal reasons and though it seems conceivable that they did have an intimate and affectionate relationship that lasted for many years, it also becomes quite obvious that Rosalind was extremely jealous, possessive and obsessed with K. and this book served her as a way to vindicate her pain after the affair ended. It's sad that such private matters had to be exposed, especially for K., who was already dead when the book was published and could not respond to any of the allegations. Krishnamurti himself never claimed he was chaste; he just claimed his private life wasn't important. His intimate relationship with Rosalind based on mutual love and friendship shows no contradiction or hypocrisy in his teachings. It is important to understand that it wasn't really an affair, since Rosalind and Raja never had a true marriage (right after Rosalind gets pregnant Raja in fact announces to her that there is no need to live as man and wife anymore, and many passages refer to Raja's tacit consent to this romantic relationship between his wife and K.). Raja's and Rosalind's marriage seemed more of an arrangement based on a profound bond of friendship, friendship that had indeed existed between all three of them (K., Raja and Rosalind) for many years before any romantic bonds were established.
I read the book in hopes of learning more about who K. was, but felt a bit disgusted with the petty details of personal conflicts which Radha was trying to settle in the public eye.
I read the book in hopes of learning more about who K. was, but felt a bit disgusted with the petty details of personal conflicts which Radha was trying to settle in the public eye.
on January 13, 2009
This is a delightful book. Krishnamurti had always seemed forbidding and austere and not fully human to me, which of course made his enlightenment, if that's the word for it, seem very remote and unlikely of attainment by ordinary men. (So you'd think a book which humanizes K would be welcomed by his followers--but you'd be wrong.)
Anyway, we see in Radha's book that he _was_ in fact an ordinary man--and a very likable one, in my own opinion. It's very clear that Radha had a conflicted view of her "Krinsh," who, through her childhood was much more of a father to her than D. Rajagopal. A certain disillusion with K informs the later part of the book, but I think it's evident that she also had a deep love for the man. That very fact would certainly explain the sense of betrayal she has about K after the breach between her parents and K, because that breach also alienated her from this man who had been a kind and devoted father-figure to her when she was young. Obviously that hurt, as did the discovery that K did not deal very well with quotidian human conflict and trouble--which is part of what made him an ordinary human. It must have hurt K too, who, lacking the psychological resources to deal with it, withdrew from Radha as well as her parents. (After enlightenment, the laundry, as they say, and K chose to hide the laundry rather than wash it and air it out. But, given his upbringing and background, how could anyone have expected otherwise?)
So Krishnamurti had flaws, and serious ones. Are we shocked? Well, some people are, but I don't see why. I mean, the overall depiction of K in this book is of a good and kind man who has failings that are not in the nature of things shocking at all.
Do any of the revelations here invalidate K's "teaching," as he called it? Not at all. So why the outrage?
Puzzling, isn't it?
Anyway, we see in Radha's book that he _was_ in fact an ordinary man--and a very likable one, in my own opinion. It's very clear that Radha had a conflicted view of her "Krinsh," who, through her childhood was much more of a father to her than D. Rajagopal. A certain disillusion with K informs the later part of the book, but I think it's evident that she also had a deep love for the man. That very fact would certainly explain the sense of betrayal she has about K after the breach between her parents and K, because that breach also alienated her from this man who had been a kind and devoted father-figure to her when she was young. Obviously that hurt, as did the discovery that K did not deal very well with quotidian human conflict and trouble--which is part of what made him an ordinary human. It must have hurt K too, who, lacking the psychological resources to deal with it, withdrew from Radha as well as her parents. (After enlightenment, the laundry, as they say, and K chose to hide the laundry rather than wash it and air it out. But, given his upbringing and background, how could anyone have expected otherwise?)
So Krishnamurti had flaws, and serious ones. Are we shocked? Well, some people are, but I don't see why. I mean, the overall depiction of K in this book is of a good and kind man who has failings that are not in the nature of things shocking at all.
Do any of the revelations here invalidate K's "teaching," as he called it? Not at all. So why the outrage?
Puzzling, isn't it?
on August 28, 2014
For many years, I (like most of the reviewers here) was convinced that this was a truthful and important book, part of the salutary movement of exposing guru-iitis in all its forms. However, something rang a bit strange: her accounts of her family's constant, aggressive interference in Krishnamurti's private sexual life. Such interference was odd enough in itself, but odder still was the fact that the author gave no explanation, and seemed to find it natural.
Then I read Mary Lutyens KRISHNAMURTI AND THE RAJAGOPALS. Talk about the Rashomon effect --- wow! But after careful consideration, I find Mary Lutyens's account far more credible. But this is not a situation of possible compromise between different views. Lutyens's attack is too serious. Therefore, I now consider Radha Rajagopal's book to be mostly a tissue of lies, woven in a very suave way, with a skillful pose of "reasonability" with a "more in sadness than in anger" stance, and a pretense of appreciating what was great in K. Which makes her book even more profoundly dishonest, if even a tenth of what Mary Lutyens says is true. And it gets far worse: K confided to Lutyens that Radha had twice attacked him physically with such viciousness that he felt a murderous intent.
But what was this woman's motivation in writing such a dishonest smear of a beloved spiritual teacher who had never shown her anything but love since her childhood? The answer is her imprisonment in the Rajagopal family neurosis. Her father (K's manager and editor for many years) harbored a lifelong resentment and jealousy of K, seething underneath a façade of spirituality and forgiveness for his escapade with his wife. And her mother was almost as bitter and confused --- long after the affair with K was over. In sum: the mother couldn't give K up, the father couldn't forgive him, and the daughter couldn't escape her parents' neurosis, and became imprisoned in their worldview.
I do recommend reading both these books: it's an eye-opening education in the convolutions and clever self-deceptions of ego-mind! However, it's a grave mistake to read only the Sloss book. You can download a pdf of Mary Lutyens's book for free at a number of sites, including booksee.org
Then I read Mary Lutyens KRISHNAMURTI AND THE RAJAGOPALS. Talk about the Rashomon effect --- wow! But after careful consideration, I find Mary Lutyens's account far more credible. But this is not a situation of possible compromise between different views. Lutyens's attack is too serious. Therefore, I now consider Radha Rajagopal's book to be mostly a tissue of lies, woven in a very suave way, with a skillful pose of "reasonability" with a "more in sadness than in anger" stance, and a pretense of appreciating what was great in K. Which makes her book even more profoundly dishonest, if even a tenth of what Mary Lutyens says is true. And it gets far worse: K confided to Lutyens that Radha had twice attacked him physically with such viciousness that he felt a murderous intent.
But what was this woman's motivation in writing such a dishonest smear of a beloved spiritual teacher who had never shown her anything but love since her childhood? The answer is her imprisonment in the Rajagopal family neurosis. Her father (K's manager and editor for many years) harbored a lifelong resentment and jealousy of K, seething underneath a façade of spirituality and forgiveness for his escapade with his wife. And her mother was almost as bitter and confused --- long after the affair with K was over. In sum: the mother couldn't give K up, the father couldn't forgive him, and the daughter couldn't escape her parents' neurosis, and became imprisoned in their worldview.
I do recommend reading both these books: it's an eye-opening education in the convolutions and clever self-deceptions of ego-mind! However, it's a grave mistake to read only the Sloss book. You can download a pdf of Mary Lutyens's book for free at a number of sites, including booksee.org
on April 14, 2001
I read the book with interest and an open mind. The conclusions the author makes are often unfounded. There are some interesting historical descriptions and the most important contribution of the book was to depict that K was actually a human - and in my mind that made him even greater, because being a human he understood the human condition. But the author appears to constantly want to attack K for being a human and many of her conclusions seem to be inaccurate and unfounded - at least they are not presented with much solid logic.
on July 19, 2003
In 1929, Krishnamurti said, "Organizations cannot make you free. No man from outside can make you free; nor can organised worship, nor the immolation of yourselves for a cause, make you free; nor can forming yourselves into an organisation, nor throwing yourselves into work, make you free." As far as I could see, he was consistent with his theory through out his life.
My own finding about a great teacher is that after your emotional moment faded for him/her, the most valuable thing remains with you, and that valuable thing is the inspiration and the effect of his/her teachings. Once you realize the truth in the teaching, you are able to walk your own path independently. And that truth remains true regardless what perception you have toward your teacher.
This book is a good challenge to Krishnamurti's usual readers, which forces you to re-think K's teachings in many levels, and for that reason I gave it 5 stars.
My own finding about a great teacher is that after your emotional moment faded for him/her, the most valuable thing remains with you, and that valuable thing is the inspiration and the effect of his/her teachings. Once you realize the truth in the teaching, you are able to walk your own path independently. And that truth remains true regardless what perception you have toward your teacher.
This book is a good challenge to Krishnamurti's usual readers, which forces you to re-think K's teachings in many levels, and for that reason I gave it 5 stars.
on May 9, 2001
I recently read this work by Mrs. Sloss. I've read many Krishnamurti works and willingly read this book as it presents a different opinion of the man. The conclusions as to Krishnamurti's motives, etc. are entirely imaginative in my humble opinion. It may have been a good sell had it not been so blatantly biased, basically the ramblings of a jilted lover filtered through her daughter who seeks to weave a very tall tale indeed. Shame, shame. While I would not recommend buying this book, if you must read it, borrow it instead!! In addition though, please read another book after that provides a most excellent response by Mary Lutyens called "Krishnamurti and the Rajagopals." Only then will you be able to determine for yourself what the real story is!...
on May 14, 2001
Either Krishnamurti's "message" is true or it is not. Why do we care about the man himself? Krishnamurti himself urged us not to consider him a guru or focus on his "legacy". Regardless of what personal behavior he engaged in, one must determine for oneself if the words he spoke through the course of his life were simply words, or the reflection of a "reality" that is independent of our need to connect the image of a man to some potentially deeper truth. Maybe everything he said was pure fantasy, not applicable to the human condition. But that judgement has nothing to do with any new evidence that may or may not come to light with regard to Krishnamurti's personal behavior. Let's just all try to figure it out for ourselves and not be too quick to put anyone on a pedestal nor cast him/her down.
