« Life is plenty good without God | Main | Comments on Gurinder Singh's "earthquake" letter to Japan »

April 27, 2011


Feed You can follow this conversation by subscribing to the comment feed for this post.

"there's no such thing as "actually is."

Do we know this? Does the fact that all perceptors perceive differently mean that there is no one "actuality" perceived in infinitely different ways?

chauncey, perhaps there is one "actuality" perceived in infinitely many ways. But how could we ever know this, if everyone perceives it differently?

The fault of not understanding Jiddu is your own Brian(sound familiar ?)Even he said no one had heard the bird's song after he had spoke for years and years

Dogribb, I'm sure you're right. Who else would be responsible for not understanding Jiddu but me?

My basic problem is with supposed spiritual adepts who say, "There's nothing to do; nowhere to go, no one to become." Then they write book after book explaining how there's no need to read books or follow a teacher.

i'm sort of that way myself, so maybe this is why I have such a problem with Me also.

And therein lies the rub. If the 'me' drops away (even mometarily)it's so sublime that as soon as the mind takes control again, it all gets lost in the interpretation. Literally, the mind says wtf was that?... and then proceeds to create meaning. Can one function in the sensory world with an abiding no-me?

Actually Jiddo Krishnamurti did write a book
on his inner world, before he bagan to
debunk it. He was young.

I believe it was called The Adventures of
Alclone (or something like that). He
had been trained by a very advanced
kundalini master when very young and
all the experiences you people are aware
of, he had had. He had reached full Master
status at yoga at young age.

It is not that the tree is not a tree.

But, the tree can be looked at by nobody.

When the realization that thought has
mistakenly personalized itself occurs,
a major transformation 'happens'.

The personalized thought no longer
wants to cut down the tree, because the
'self' no longer controls action in
a 'self'ish way.

Without a self the object is seen as it is.

With a self, the tree is seen as lumber,
paper and must be clearcut for parking lots.

Without a self, the tree is seen as a nest for birds and its beauty.

There are some Krishnamurti students whom
"listen to the birds".

In fact, I know one whom talks with them.

I read K for quite a few years, and because of his insistance 'i am not an authority' I didn't realize just how deep i was in his 'cult' till one day straight after reading his book when on hjoliday I had needed another fix of K, and had gone to the library, and I was looking for K books, and I came across a strange one. Not authored by himself, but by a woman and it was titled, Lives in the Shadow: With Krishnamurtu, by Radha Sloss, who I found out was his secret lover!!
I began to read this book in the library, and a cold sweat came over me when I realized it was an expose of him. This was when i began to dig how I had come under his power

I went through a truma as I de-culted myself from the influence he had had over me. Is what I am ssaying unfair?

Well, dont get me wrong, he has good insights, but they are not patented by HIM! Such as being aware of inattention IS attention. Ie., say your daydreaming, just get into it it is part of the flow

BUT he emphasized a state-of-being he was at, and you weren't. I remember seeing videos of his talks and he often acted weird saying to the audience eg 'are you there...? No your not'--hence I consider this dis-ompowering people and it is a move to keep them attached to their 'guru'. He 'has', you 'aint'. And I saw this attitude a lot.

And like most belief systems that pretend to know 'the truth and nothin but' he would put down psychedelic experience. And where did he get his evidence about psychedelics? Readers Digest! LOL

J.K. says according to Blogger B.:

"Have you ever experimented with looking at an objective thing like a tree without any of the associations, any of the knowledge you have acquired about it, without any prejudice, any judgement, any words forming a screen between you and the tree and preventing you from seeing it as it actually is?"

--"I" have. When that happens there is no observer. There is just the tree. Nothing changes, but the "object" is no longer infused with ideas of perception. It is just present. In that presence an aliveness, a radiance, unclouded by conditioning, is apparent that is not typical of our everyday peception. This is, as far as I'm concerned, transcendent, but I can't convey it to anyone. I can't prove it is true or exists in any sort of way.

Yet, when one encounters people struggling with the search for reality you find yourself giving pointers. They are not methods or practices, but rather roadblocks that may or may not channel the person's awareness to where they see for themselves.

This how some teachers find themselves in that role. For some reason people are attracted to their message, their vibe, their roadblocks, and the next thing teacher knows he/she is a lecture tour (or not).

Even if they know there is nothing to teach but unteaching, it was not planned, it just manifested out of the blue. Maybe that is how it was with J.K. I don't know. I do know there are others who know they are charlatans. They know they are fakes, cons and scammers. Others deceive themselves that they know something and are sincere in their delusion like evangelists. That's just what they are and the role they play. J.K seemed to know this about teachers, religions and paths, but still he could have been deceiving himself in his teachings of non-teaching. Who knows?

Only you will know when you know. Know one can help you. I don't think it really matters if you "know" or not because it's all the same anyway. It just doesn't matter. It's all the same anyway. Go where the wind blows. You are as helpless as a Wal Mart receipt in a windstorm.

However, once seen, there is not the possibility that this is just another way that one individual's mind filters sensory perception because that mechanism is absent even if you say this is impossible because there is an apparent individual with a brain who is perceiving this.

The observed is the obsever. Trite and cliche', yes. We've all heard it countless time, but true, imho. It causelessly manifests out of nothing. The big bang rings anew every moment. What came first, the chicken or the egg? Neither. How could it have been one or the other? This says a lot. Why is there no missing link?

What I see here on this blog is the continual struggle one way or another to find something absolute and true. Nothing bad about that, but to see 'as it is' is not anything to be discussed or described. It can't be bound by concepts, words and instructions or double blind studies.

This blog is doomed to failure if its goal is to arrive at an articulated answer. Not gonna happen. This blog is just a game of mental gymnastics. Hve fun. This blog will continue to be successful in perpetuating the mental gymnastics game which ironically is the very barrier to the "answer" it seeks. This is not meant as a criticism or put down.

You can't stop the mind, but you can catch it in its tangents. Say to "yourself" whenever you become aware.. "not this, not that". Forever stop in the moment. Then it will move again. That's OK. As soon as something seems to be captured and you become aware of this clinging, release it. Always empty, empty, empty. Perhaps a fullness will dawn?

tucson, good comment. I guess for me it isn't so much what J. Krishnamurti says (though that's part of it) but how he says it, his whole demeanor and style of expression.

He and Alan Watts aren't so different, philosophically. How you expressed yourself in the comment above is more Watts'ish that JK'ish.

I mean, life is a big freaking mystery. We can't ever grasp it, just bits and pieces of it. Relaxing and laughing at our attempts -- yes.

I sense from J. Krishnamurti that he takes life a lot more seriously than Watts did, which probably is why I found "Freedom from the Known" kind of unappealing.

On a completely different note - anyone know how to git rid of poltergeists? I didn't believe before, but i do now.

David, seems like there should be an iPhone app for getting rid of poltergeists. Whenever I have a problem, there's who I look to for help first: my dearly beloved iPhone. I'd trust it more than a priest.


How about ghostbusters?

Brian, unfortunately iPhones don't help with ghosts. I don't trust priests either, but when you have no one else to turn to, what do you do?

Don't know much about ghostbusters around here. I don't trust psychic mediums, 99% are fake. I don't think this problem will go away though. My girlfriend from India is here, i think she brought them with her since she has a ghost yoga in her astrological chart.

Yeah Brian, I know what you mean about J. K. Very serious, strict vibe about him. I saw him once. Didn't resonate well with me, but he obviously was smart. Never saw Watts but his book "The Book" was very seminal for me even though his style of writing was sort of laborious for me to get through. It was his generation or cultural/educational background I guess. Very intellectual. Took him five sentences to express one. But I think he was right on at times. Wei Wu Wei surpasses them all, imo. Yet, many find him completely abstruse. The Jersey Shore poeple are not going to like Wei Wu Wei.

I believe there are ghosts, trapped energy forms that have difficulty finding release. I have had luck burning a smudge of dried sage in the location while chanting something that is rythmical and means something positive to you. Best done with a group. With focused intent, together ask the ghost to leave and wish it well on its journey. Visualize its departure and light filling all the space of the location that acts as a barrier to its return.

David, if you can't beat poltergeists or get rid of them, you could always try joining them. Ask them to teach you their secrets. Or show you a good time. Then write a book about your experience. You might end up possessed, but you'll probably have a best seller on your hands.

Jiddo Krishnamurti had no lovers.
Yes, I know about the actress and
what Mary Lutkens said.

people are trying to make money
off him now and scandal sells.

Jiddo was chaste from boyhood
in the old Brahman tradition
of kundalini masters.

He was completely asexual.

There's a lot of nonsense out
there now by people whom
didn't even know him.

None of it is true.

"Have you ever experimented with looking at an objective thing like a tree without any of the associations..." (he said). "No, Jiddu, I haven't." (you said).

Seriously? You haven't even *tried*? In the quote at least, I don't read him saying "Have you ever succeeding in looking at an object..." Even the attempt is useful, isn't it?

Coincidentally I recently watched the Young Indiana Jones episode in which Indy meets JK (streams live from Netflix) and liked it so much I sent for the Bonus Disc to see more of his life. Interesting character but I agree it deserves a Boo! Hiss! to say, "...and no one can free you, not even me, but buy my books and come to my lectures!"

I went from RSSB to finding JK.Being aware of transference I made sure to read all the muck.I hung onto 2 thoughts during this construction/deconstruction."You don't know the Guru.You only know his performance"Take the message forget about the messenger"

How reality "actually is" seems to change a lot as far as I'm concerned!

Both Krishnamurtis are fascinating to read about, rather than read. A short article: http://www.mountainrunnerdoc.com/page/page/4508241.htm I'd say UG Krishnamurti was far more entertaining than J.

Listen Brian, would you be willing to read my new book and review it? Pulling no punches and not trying to be nice? I've got some feedback but it's a bit sickly sweet and I'd like something a little more challenging, for which I hope I could count on you. It's called The Ultimate Twist and can be found on Amazon or Non Duality Press' website. It has two definite things to recommend it: it's cheap, and it's short.

Love as always, Suzanne, and hope you're still doing as well as reported a couple of months ago!

Sure, Suzanne, I'll read your book and write about it on my blog. Cheap and short -- that's a good start to a positive review.

Yay!! Thanks Brian.

" the silence that comes when thought has understood its own beginning, the nature of itSELF, ... the meditator(SELF)is entirely absent, for the mind has emptied itSELF of the past."
quote Jiddo Krishnamurti

Yes, that is the ultimate state of the jnani. No, you won't end up in an asylum.

The self is not repressed via force.

The SELF (WHO, as personalized thought),
is seen as bogus.

Jiddo Krishnamurti once told me the
SELF is not defeated by cannon fire,
the SELF is chased away with a broomstick.

Jiddo asks one to see the exact point
thought personalizes itself. WHO is there
within impersonal thought, that can
personalize ?

This is the ultimate realization.

It is so powerful it completely shoots
down the notion of the SELF.

The SELF is nothing more than impersonal
thought, mistakenly personalising itself.

The self is a ball of wax. When the Sun
comes up, it melts by its very nature.

Jiddo would have loved Susan Blackmore,
whom stated, 'there is no one (SELF)experiencing anything'.

We cannot be saved, because there is
no one WHO can be saved.

The Gordian Knot of the SELF is not
unwound strand by strand. The sword
of direct perception slices though
everything all at once.

The SELF is not destroyed by the Guru.

The SELF is vaporized by ones inner

Each one of us is our own Houdini.

You cannot kill a ghost that doesn't

"perhaps there is one "actuality" perceived in infinitely many ways. But how could we ever know this, if everyone perceives it differently?"

As long as we're saying "perceives it", then "it" is the universe to be perceived in a multiplicity of ways. This leaves open the possibility that it can be perceived more on its own terms than the perceptor's.

"David, if you can't beat poltergeists or get rid of them, you could always try joining them. Ask them to teach you their secrets. Or show you a good time. Then write a book about your experience. You might end up possessed, but you'll probably have a best seller on your hands."

Is this sarcasm? You are a very troubled individual.

By the way, what do you make of all the regular contributors to the blog comments when they bring up supernatural or otherwise odd experiences? Do you get jealous? Does it make you think twice? Or do you just continue to hash and rehash out the same old tired atheist/skeptic rant?

David, I don't feel troubled. At least, I'm not troubled by poltergeists. I didn't take you seriously because I don't take poltergeists seriously.

But I was kind of serious when I made the recommendations that I did. Why should we be afraid of stuff that almost certainly doesn't exist? Like poltergeists. Or the Devil.

If you believe that such entities do exist, why not try to make contact with them and see what they are like? This would help you learn whether they are a product of your imagination or whether they're objectively real.

I'm not at all jealous of people who mention their strange or supposedly supernatural experiences. Every day, in fact every moment, I have my own experiences. Because they're mine, not someone else's, they're much more meaningful to me.

The same is true for everybody, of course. No one can have someone else's experience. So it's ridiculous to be jealous of such. I can experience someone else's car by driving it, but I can't experience someone else's experience.

I'm sorry if my rants seem tired and rehashed to you. I do my best to come up with fresh rants. Or at least a different slant on my old rants. However, just as I eat raisin bran every day and always like it, I'll admit to ranting in much the same way regularly because it also is enjoyable to me.

I don't take what you say seriously either. Just to let you know.

Love the Jiddu/UG article Suz.An interesting note.Before Jiddu passed he ensured that his body would be cremated but the crematorium would be scrupulously cleaned prior to his cremation.He wanted to be sure his ashes would not be mixed with the prior customers.This isn't generally done BTW.UG on the other hand told his people to throw him out in the garden for the slugs

Hi Dogribb and Suz,

Couple things wrong about the
Krishnamurti article.

Annie Besant brought Krishnamuti up.

There were people 'who got it',
while Krishnamuti was alive and
it is falacy to think there
weren't many.

Alan Watts being one of them.

The author quotes Kirpal, well known
fake guru and Paul Brunton.

Paul Brunton was thrown out of Ramana
Maharshi's ashram, returned a few times
only to be removed again. Brunton had
some bad scandals.

A fellow wrote a book called My Father's
Guru, or something like that, about
Brunton. Brunton told this guy he could
make him enlightened and the man spent
$50,000 on Brunton. The man, this author's
father, never became enlightened and Brunton
never paid him back.

Of course Kirpal has been debunked :

Regarding both Krishnamurti's.

I just want to say I am loosing
my faith in mankind, when I read
the responses to these people
on this blog.

Neither of these people had
any scandals.

Jiddo could have made a Trillion
dollars taking up the role of the
guru and refused it.

He could have been greater then
Jesus Christ if he had wanted too.

So, people think he wanted to make
money off books ??????????

And, make money telling people
to stay away from religion and
gurus ???????????

Plain stupidy.

You can't become enlightened and
blame it on Jiddo and U.G. ????????

Whom dedicated their lives trying
to help YOU.

Shame on you people.

It's no wonder few people have ever
tried to help humanity.

Maybe humanity does not deserve
to be helped.

Maybe the exsatsangis are as bad
as the satsangis.

Truly disgraceful behaviour.

It causes me to loose faith in

What I know is only what was written.Perhaps there wrong.I find it all pretty interesting and part of my own inquiry. I understand Bohm was himself realized via Jiddu and was equally perplexed by a falling out with the same.I read the Brunton book ..your assessment is right.Kirpal is hardly worth the air to say anything about.

Hi Dogribb,
Like your analysis. People forget
Jiddo Krishnamurti was born in a century
where they still hung people in England
for being an atheist.

Had he not had high powered friends in
Holywood like Charlie Chaplin
and Carol Lombard, he would have
been crucified by the press.

He was against all gurus and preachers.
Jiddo was fantastically radical for
his day.

He gave up money and fame to help
the average person whom was honestly
seeking reality.

He was an absolutely wonderful human
being, both on and off camera.

He lived a totally honest life.

He was a simple man, with the most
complex mind I have ever encountered.

Everything I hear about Jiddo since
his death is incorrect.

Maybe someone whom actually knew him
will write a book someday.

Not a day in my life goes by that
I do not think about him.

Hi David,

You have mentioned ghosts.

And, of course they have been
mentioned by Thakar as having
been at Kirpal's ashram, even
taking control of him in the secret
letter I published.

But, look deeper at the word
Thakar used. He said demons.

This can be read as a force.

Yes, there were indeed 'forces'
around Kirpal and Thakar.

I have seen possessed people
in this group myself. MANY.

There is a difference between ghosts
and demons (forces).

Ghosts do not exist.

But, there is a demonic force.

I am very sure of this.

But, people think because I am
an atheist, I can't believe
there is a Devil.

People think the Devil is only
in the minds of children.

Any theologian will tell you there
can't be a Devil without a God.

But, my own direct experience with
many groups shows me the Devil does

But, not how one thinks.

The Devil is a force, not a
phychological deviance caused
by mental disturbances.

This force can enter ones
person. It can drive
one to insanity.

It cannot be described as
kundalini, or the result
of bad yoga practice.

The only reason I surfaced
and wrote the book Radhasoami
Beas Secret History was to try
and stop this 'Force'.

The 'Force' is in full swing since Kirpal.
Now it has gone to ECKANKAR and Summa Ching
Hai, the fastest growing Radhasoami group.

Summa Ching Hai was initiated by Thakar
and spent 6 months in his New York

This Force resides in such people as
Rajinder, Summa Ching Hai and I also
believe the new master at Dayal Bagh.

I believe Mayer Baba was also possessed.

This force is a cancer. A great cause
of concern.

you never really read it. you were too busy looking for what you agreed with and what you disagreed with -- closed mind. :)

"Nan-in, a Japanese master during the Meiji era (1868-1912), received a university professor who came to inquire about Zen.

Nan-in served tea. He poured his visitor's cup full, and then kept on pouring.

The professor watched the overflow until he no longer could restrain himself. "It is overfull. No more will go in!"

"Like this cup," Nan-in said, "you are full of your own opinions and speculations. How can I show you Zen unless you first empty your cup?"

Fortunately, your review of K's book says more about you than about him or his teachings.

"you are full of your own opinions and speculations. How can I show you Zen unless you first empty your cup?"

K did all the work. Just as Budda and others have done. Then having done nothing, living in the dimension of opinion, you hope to gain from others.Do the work yourself,K has tried to help. Stop reading and start doing.All opinion is a waste of energy, as useful as negotiation.

Right. You might as well have a sign tattooed on your forehead reading "weak" if you are needing a "fix" of JK. He never intended that and if you're obsessing about this man and his teaching you're doing exactly what he said not to do. Ultimately, you have to do the work and quit swimming in other people's books, lectures, and treatises. At the end of the day, most people aren't willing to do this and are forever destined to seek the answer from someone else.

Ah, so I'm not the only one who thinks that Jiddu Krishnamurti was a hack.

I read his book “The Awakening of Intelligence” and I kept waiting for him to say something clear. He never does. Not really. He has this weird way of speaking in questions, never quite saying anything. After a while I began to suspect that he was somebody who had been raised to be a wise man and couldn't find any other kind of work.

As the Amazon reviewer Inconnu said: “He does say a few things that are interesting but even a frozen watch is right twice a day.”

I hope I've made it clear that I'm not enthused about J. Krishnamurti. However, I cannot agree with the premise of these two statements from the review: “Krishnamurti is fooling himself, and us, when he says that the mind can empty itself of the past. It simply isn't possible to erase the 'hard drive' of the brain without either being dead, or in a comatose vegetative state.”

It is not necessary to erase the memory of the past to empty one's current moment. Even for the least enlightened of us, memory can become non-operative to a greater or lesser extent. This is what happens when, for example, somebody turns their back on the religion or bigotry of their parents. And when we find ourselves listening to somebody with an open heart, not judging while we listen, our memory's interference is hugely minimized.

There are other examples (like "flow") but I hope you catch my drift.

So JK may have been on to something in this case and others. But I wouldn't recommend his book. I can't shake the feeling he was a faker.

N. Sapiens, thanks for the comment. I agree that we can seem to be completely in the moment, in the flow, but neuroscience knows that most of what goes on in the brain occurs outside of conscious awareness.

Lots of studies have shown that people are affected by those unconscious influences, even though their conscious memory traces, thoughts, emotions, etc. lead the people to erroneously believe otherwise.

the observer becoming the observed

i have come to know from various sources,jiddu before becoming a so called guru was addicted to sex with prostitutes and later on became pimp and then finally a arrogant guru.
I do not know how much true is this news.
but came to know from some sources from tirupati a place in andhra pradesh.
that he was sex maniac in his young years.

I just want to thank everyone for all these wonderful posts, understanding and companionship!

What kind of discussion is this? How can anybody dare to say this or that on the person JK? Did anybody meet JK personally, talked with him, has seen him from near or far? Or even sit in the same room with him, talking, discussing, investigating?
What can a "scientific fact" prove about the person JK? His mind? His brain?

Mike Williams and Basho already had said. You have a lot of speculations and preconceived ideas about your beliefs of what reality should be. For you defined truth as something you... agreed with and what you disagreed with. So long as you don't drop those, you cannot refill that cup of water unless it is empty. This is also how revolutionary ideas happened, it isn't due to an old idea but because another idea, that is different from the previous one, is conceive.

After shifting from religious dogmas, you just shifterd from another one that is called Science. This is because you eagerly swallow any information that comes up that matched your point of view, with no questions ask and with no thinking at all. You define skepticism as something that eagerly desires to prove how wrong those that contradicts your belief system of accepted reality, while deliberately excluding yourself from the state of questioning, of what if your wrong?

"There are those that will question why genuine "secret teachings" should be published for the general public. The author answers this near the end of the book in recounting the tale of Alexander's displeasure in hearing that his mentor Aristotle had published one of his most profound discourses for anyone to read. Aristotle's reply was that those who lacked spiritual comprehension would gain little from reading the book. That is also true in our time. Most people will not read this book, and those who do (if not ready) will dismiss it as nonsense. That certainly applied to me in my youth. It is a foolproof lock to wisdom- it will sound like foolishness to those who have not yet obtained to spiritual comprehension. You have to be capable of contemplating such teachings and then internalizing them"

K comes across as pompous and he isn't a good speaker. It's a lot of words saying very little (unlike alan Watts.) His devotees must need a conservative, over serious father figure. If I need a sleeping pill I'll find him lecturing on end of my radio dial.

Religion is based on dogma while science abhors dogma.

One can know JK was irrational without having had tea with him at Fortman and Mason

In answer to 'the other roger,' no, JK was not a sex maniac in his youth. You may have mixed him with 'the other krishnamurti,' UG, who was an international representative of the Theosophists, blessed with the mission to follow JK around and report back. This totally f888ed his mind and he ended up a couch potato. UG's 'catastrophe' as he called his enlightenment experience, occurred in a Paris stripclub.

After this, UG approached JK with the proposal that they should appear on a joint platform as "The Two Krishnamurti's" and was given the bum's rush. It is said that UG craved sweet desserts and would cry when denied a fourth helping.

Shotgun answers,

Alan Watts learned from Jiddo Krishnamurti
and had the highest regard.

U G Krishnamuti did track JK for
about a decade. Rajneesh even sent his rep
to find out about U G, because he was
interested in him.

JK was non sexual in the Brahman tradition
and had no scandals. The book published
by J'K's editor's daughter was a pack of lies.

Both JK and UG spent their lives trashing religion and gurus.

Dear Shotgun, Rhadha Rajagopal Sloss was not 'merely' K's editor's daughter. Her father was K's editor, yes, but also his closest frind and supporter over some decades, up until K renounced him, which followed K's decades long sexual affair with his wife, Rosalind. Rhadha was practically raised by K and held him as her preferential father figure for her entire youth.

Far from beiung simply someone else's daughter, she was in intimate contact with K during her childhood and beyond and her compassion for him is evident in her book, Lives in the Shadow with Krishnamurti. In that book she fills in that which had been previously suppressed about K's private life. The reaction from the K Foundations was not to deny his decades long sexual affair but to admit it, yet at the same time to assert that K was pushed into it by the devious pair, Rosalind and Raja. You can read it all in Mary Lutyen's book, Krishnamurti and the Rajagopals.

Your comment that K was celebate, "in the Brahman tradition" is denied flatly by K who said repeatedly that he did not follow any tradition. Yet, many of his supporters did follow tradition and perhaps that was the main reason K kept his private sexual life a complete secret. Your need to believe in tradition is surely behind your insistance on an untruth, one which has been exposed, both by his intimates and by his foundations.

Finally, while both UJ and K spent their time trashing other gurus, including each other, they never trashed themselves - which is the mark of the true guru, to trash one's competitors. As long as we are willing to believe in gurus, teachings, esoteric truth etc etc, we will live in the land of cognitive dissonance well known to the gullable crowd down through the ages.

K insisted NOT to believe in one's own experience but to 'listen' to him. It reminds me of a line by Chico Marx, "Hey, who you gonna believe, me or your own eyes?"

Hello Osito,

You may not be aware, I knew JK from
the time I was 12 years old until
just before his death. A very long period
of time.

There is nothing that could have happenned
to JK on the scandal side I would not have
known about. Everyone around him would have
known. No way to keep any secrets in that

Jiddu was trained by a high powered master
in kundalini yoga and advanced through the
inner planes. Chastity was of extreme
importance. JK wrote the book 'The Adventures of Alclone' (or some such title)
at a young age.

You are getting your info second hand from
vested interests.

There are many crazy people in the world whom will say anything to make a buck.

Jiddu was the most honest human being I have
ever met.

Mike;a pleasure to read you as always. I hope your leg has healed. There is something I want your opinion on please. What are your thoughts on celibacy please? Is there a correlation between spiritual awakening and controlling sexual urges? A long time ago I read a book by Napoleon Hill which spoke of sexual transmutation i.e. discarding the physical act of sex to channel sexual energy into creativity . My interpretation may be wrong so your thoughts would be invaluable to me.

Hi 9th Gate,

Chastity in my opinion is a waste of time.

I practiced a physical tranric trick whereby
I could maintain chastity perfectly, even
though I was having chastity.

Ended up having an operation in a hospital
under full surgery.

I did this for 3 years and it did not
help meditation at all.

RS meditation lends to not seeing anything
due to looking into darkness.

Here is a better trick. Wake up 2 hours before you normally do. Drink two cups
of strong coffee and fall back asleep.
As you fall asleep watch whatever comes in your mind. Anything. Go with it, don't resist.

Have trigger points where you realize while
you are sleeping, that you are sleeping.
Such as if you have to go to the bathroom and can't, or if you are falling off
a cliff you will not be hurt.

With a little practice you can become conscious in your dreams and they will
become quite spectacular.

Dear MW, you declare: "Jiddu was trained by a high powered master in kundalini yoga and advanced through the
inner planes."

You then complain: "You are getting your info second hand"

One can't help but wonder how you got your info on this and on K's 'chastity' firsthand. Were you there when he was not having sex with Rosalind? Did you chance come upon them not having sex?

And how you contradict yourself!

You reply to me: "Chastity was of extreme importance."

Yet state to 9th Gate: "Chastity in my opinion is a waste of time."

But, a believer needs rationality just about as much as a moose needs a hatrack!

Hello Osito,

Everyone knows chastity is considered
of paramount importance in kundalini yoga
due to so called Ojas.

I do not believe from my experience
chastity helps at all, which I have
stated many times.

I often differ from what gurus tell us.

In fact, most of the time I differ from them.

If JK was having affairs, their would have
been no way he could have hid it. There
were constantly people around him.

There were no secrets. If anything like
this had happenned, I obviously would not have been around him all those years.

Neither would anyone else.

Dear MW, I certainly did not mention 'affairs.' I said he had a decades long sexual relationship with Rosalind Rajagopal, which is quite another matter. It has been suggested that he also had an affair during this time, with Nandini, and this caused Rosalind's jealousy and K's reaction of renouncing her. I have no idea about this, but Radha reports Rosalind's jealousy, which may have been only her fixation, but nevertheless . . .

In any case we are referring to a long-term relationship, not an affair.

With regard to people not knowing, They did know. Not everyone was 'in the loop' and one is not surprised that you, if you were one of what you call "the group" (though I have no idea whether this is merely self-aggrandisement or lunacy on your part) may have been left out of that same loop - on the 'don't ask, don't tell' principle.

You state boldly that no-one would have stayed around K had they known. Well, why then did K's personally authenticated biographer and life long friend, Mary Lutyens, who knew K much better than yourself, write a book about the affair and why did KFA publish and promote it as a repost to Radha's first-hand account?

You talk of 'second-hand sources with vested interests.' Do you say that the KFA has a vested interest in lying about K? Surely the only lying they've been interested in for as long as they've existed has been FOR K, not against him. Or, maybe the KFA has also been taken over by what you call 'the devil.'

BTW, are you the same Mike A Williams that has posted on K on other sites or is the name coincidental?

BTW Mike, I have no idea about kundalini yoga and its practice of celibacy. But I have read K's sixty year published record and most of the books on him. It's clear to me that he declared countless times that he had renounced all the practices imposed on him, all tradition and that he spoke against celibacy and against those who practiced it.

Though he did, up to the 1940's support and promote celibacy within his small group, he later publicly spoke against it. All this is public. You can go to JKrishnamurtionline and punch in celibacy and asceticism.

I'll give one passage on celibacy and another on asceticism:

K: "So seeing all this, what does one learn from all this? Learn, not morally, not morality, not celibacy and so on, but what does one learn from all this? Come on, sirs! Religions throughout the world, the ancient - I won't call them the very ancient - the Hindus, the Buddhists, Christianity, have always said, be a celibate, if you want to follow God be a celibate. Why? And they take vows of celibacy, join monasteries, become a monk, a wandering monk, as they do in India, and go through tortures with this. Right? They have taken a vow, they must stick to it. I don't know why they take a vow first but once you have taken a vow you have to follow that which you have accepted. But psychologically, inwardly, the glands, everything is functioning, and you have a terrible time. The speaker has talked to many, many of them. They go through hell. Religion has done that. You know all this, don't you? And one asks: why has man said to himself, to achieve the most sublime you must be a celibate? Do you understand? That is, you must torture yourself, go through agonies and then you will be nearer god. It seems so childish, the whole thing. Sorry! I have met many, many sanyasis, in India, monks. I won't go into the details of it, they have tortured themselves in every way. Because the popular opinion is that to reach god, to reach the highest, you must live a life of absolute abstinence."

K: "Asceticism has no inherent value. When you practice it, you are merely escaping from possession to its opposite, which is asceticism. It is like a man who seeks detachment because he experiences pain in attachment. ''Let me be detached,'' he says. Likewise, you say, ''I will become an ascetic,'' because possession creates suffering. What you are really doing is merely going from possession to nonpossession, which is another form of possession. But in that move also there is conflict, because you do not understand the full significance of possession. That is, you look to possession for comfort; you think that happiness, security, the flattery of public opinion, lies in having many things - whether they be ideas, virtues, land, or titles. Because we think that security and happiness and power lie in possession, we accumulate, we strive to possess, we struggle and compete with each other, we stifle and exploit each other. That is what is happening throughout the world, and a cunning mind says, ''Let us become ascetic; let us not possess; let us become slaves to asceticism; let us make laws so that man shall not possess.'' In other words, you are but leaving one prison for another, merely calling the new one by a different name. But if you really understand the transient value of possession, then you become neither an ascetic nor a person burdened by the desire for possession; then you are truly a human being."

Hi osito,

Yes, JK spoke against celibacy, even
though he was celibate himself lifelong.

I see no need for it either.

I am not the other Mike Williams.

Yes, I was in the loop.

JK had no scandals.

Ah, but there was an outside loop and an inside loop.

And next you'll be telling me he never touched alcohol! Actually you'll find references to his taking a small glass of wine with meals while in France.

The fact that you say there were no scandals is a downright lie. There were plenty of scandals and every effort to keep K out of court. All one might say is that he was not responsible for the scandals that broke around him and that they were the doing of others. I'll give a few examples.

1. That Leadbetter used to bathe him nude, which was witnessed. This was the scandal that led K's father to go to court to get him out of the clutches of the Theosophists. But Annie Besant whisked him away to England to avoid that outcome.

2. The various court cases that followed.

3. The scandal where K was accused by Leadbetter's supporters of being in the power of the Black Magician.

4. The scandal of his quitting the Theosophists and leaving all those he'd led on for years stranded and distraught.

5. The scandal of his being declared the new Messiah.

6. The scandal of his suicidal driving of fast cars around Hollywood.

7. The scandal of his ever growing expensive tastes in bespoke tailoring and hand-crafted shoes ("his poor feet pinched so" - Lutyens), in teas at exclusive salons and the antiques lavished upon him at Brockwood (no, I'm not referring to the trustees) and so on, while preaching about having an "austere mind."

8. The scandal around his relationship with Rosalind, her miscarriages and abortions ("I have no children - thank God" - JK) and the court cases that dragged on with regard to Rajagopal and the assets and literary works.

9. The scandal around the missing video recordings from Malibu and other censored materials.

10. The scandal around Bohm, his mistreatment by K and his psychological demise.

11. The scandal around the suicide of Doris Pratt after K had renounced her, "You're just like all the others, coming to me with your begging bowl."

12 The scandal around Nandini, the court case in India where K was accused of stealing her away from her husband and encouraging infidelity.

13. The scandal of how a man who had professed to be protected by 'the Other' and had undergone a physical mutation, right up to the brain cells, to have lived a totally pure life to guarantee his longevity, who said there is no reason one could not live to two-hundred, if one lived rightly, could have succumbed to two cancers in a row (prostate and pancreatic) and died from the second in his 90th year.

14. The scandal of his legacy, his berating of Scott Forbes and the rows that broke the back of Brockwood following that.

Hi osito,

You have a very active imagination. It seems
you can transpose, or misquote anything.
Anyone here can check your material
and see how funny it is.

Krishnamuti had many women whom claimed
to have been his wife, even Lutyens
admitted this. All hysterical of course.

Leabeater was accused of molesting young boys in his time, he was a Bishop in
some branch of the Catholic Church.
Leadbeater and Besant adopted Krishnamurti at a very young age as a child. Are you
so stupid you think the child Krishnamuti was molesting the old adult Leadbeater ?

Krishnamurti definitely did turn down the
role of world saviour. Lord Maitreya was
supposed to incarnate in him.

I take that as a huge plus, not a scandal.

It was a plus he renounced religions and gurus and spoke against them.

Krishnamurti was one of the most famous people in the world. There are always lots of crazy people saying crazy things when
you are in that position.

Krishnamurti had no scandals. There are only
guru followers like yourself whom try to
slander him, because he denounced gurus.

The stuff you just wrote shows you have no integrity. When you misquote and try to mislead people you are on the wrong club.

I recommend Radhasoami Studies for you.

They practice voodoo history there and
you can make friends with some other
little demons of the guru persuasion.

By the way,

Has anyone here heard of the scandal
of Charan Singh having a mistress ?

Or, Jaimal Singh being a pedophile ?

Or, Jagat's wife trying to commit suicide ?

Or, Sawan being greedy and owning ALL
the land ?

Or, Jaimal being thrown out of the satsangs
of Salig Ram and Misra ?

Or, Beas 'bending' a river and encroaching ?

Or, poor widows being forced to give their land back to RS Beas ?

Or, unpaid workers ?

Or, Gurinder's family being in billionaire class ?

Or, Charan having goods smuggled into India for him by reps ?

Dear Mike, I really don't know what you're on about. I quoted no one so how can I have misquoted? Do you know what a quote is?

You say Lutyens said many hysterical women claimed to be K's wife. I never heard this though I've read all Lutyen's works on K. Certainly I have never suggested K had a wife, unless his decades long sexual relationship with his best friend's wife constitutes 'marriage' in your eyes? So I have no idea what or who you are arguing against.

What's all this nonsense about me alleging K molested Leadbetter. I never suggested any such thing. I just wrote of the court cases wherein K's father alleged, with witnesses. that Leadbetter bathed the boy, K, naked, which was against the Brahmin tradition. This is factual and there are court records. Whether the case was mischievous or based upon fact is not my concern. The fact that the case was brought before a court and that it produced a scandal for the Theosophists and for their protege, K, is beyond doubt.

That K turned down his role as world teacher and became "The Speaker" is also beyond doubt. A neat sideways move to distance himself from the Theosophy whilst maintaining his supernatural status and myth. Try reading The Inner Life of Krishnamurti by Aryel Sunat (a Theosophist) K never renounced the Masters and often made reference to the powers that were, he said, working him behind 'the curtain.' I can give a thousand quotes.

You say K was one of the most famous people in the world. Maybe so, maybe not. The lives of famous people are famously scandal ridden. Including the famous people he mixed with, Hollywood and beyond.

You go on next to call me a guru follower. Well chum, the observer IS the observed! I have no gurus and no one who even comes close to it. Stop projecting and wise-up to your own fantasising. You recommend guru-studies to me? Hah, that's a laugh. I have no need to study gurus.

Call me lacking integrity, by all means, but acknowledge that according to K we all lack that quality of integration, of an integrated mind. Now, tell me exactly WHAT an integrated mind would look like, from the inside. I believe in no such thing.

The problem with all gurus is that they preach totalities and these tptal states become the goal for their followers to reach. The carrot and the stick. Some people are comfortable as donkeys. The K centres are full of them. You probably were brought up as one. Poor boy!

Hi osito,
First you have confused Radha Sloss book
with Mary Lutyen's book.

Then you confused Krishnamurti Foundation
legal actions to get rights back to books after his death. You didn't know even
Lutyen's said there were many women whom claimed to be Krishnamurti's wife, most of whom never met him. i.e. hysterical.

Then you didn't know Leadbeater was Krishnamurti's adopted father when
he was a little kid. And, suggested the child Krishnamurti, while playing with his rubber duckie in the bath tub, sexual assaulted an old man !!!!!!!!

Osito, you are literally making this bizarre stuff up off the top of your head.

I have a suggestion for you. Go to Foster's Freeze and buy a giant Banana Split.

Take off all your clothes and dive right
into it and splash around.

When you get out, there will be men there
waiting for you with a white suit.

These men will take you to live in a nice clean secure place.... where you will not be able to hurt yourself.

"First you have confused Radha Sloss book with Mary Lutyen's book."

Where? I have confused nothing. I came to this discussion because of the confusion sown by Juliano who stated that Radha Sloss was K's secret lover. The Lutyens' book makes it clear that Rosalind, Radha's mother, was his secret lover, not the daughter (which would have made K a pedophile.)

I suggest you are the one who is confused.

"Then you confused Krishnamurti Foundation legal actions to get rights back to books after his death."

No, the legal actions started way before that, while K was still alive. Read Lutyens' biographies.

"You didn't know even Lutyen's said there were many women whom claimed to be Krishnamurti's wife, most of whom never met him. i.e. hysterical."

No, I still do not know that. Please give me a quote and a source. I am prepared to look at it, yet it is of scarce consequence since it hardly touches upon the matters at hand.

"Then you didn't know Leadbeater was Krishnamurti's adopted father when he was a little kid."

This is untrue. There was no adoption and he never called Leadbeater 'father.' He did regard Besant as a second mother however. But why are you now making things up?

"And, suggested the child Krishnamurti, while playing with his rubber duckie in the bath tub, sexual assaulted an old man !!!!!!!!"

Enough! Anyone reading the above exchanges will know I said no such thing. Get serious or get going. The rest of your post is childish insult. Why would a grown man waste his time on such silliness?

Hi osito,
This short Youtube video
will explain your knowledge
of history.


What the clip showed, Mike, is your ability to offer a cheap jab in place of a reasoned argument. But that's your issue. I end my comments here.

I'm sure you misunderstood what he meant by this when he or U.G. Krishnamurti say they 'reject all of that'. They don't actually reject it, they just don't fall for the traps. They aren't in conflict with the things around them. Don't take it word by word, or else you won't see the bigger picture of it all.

U people stick ur noses in such irrelevant themes, has he had sex, was it inappropriate sex, was there an egoistic pleasure in him or some signs of him not being loyal to insights, did he steal a candy or either killed a man has no matter at all... u can be envy or worshiper, one is for sure we are not working together to see this invisible prison in and around us... as long as we have no common curiosity for revealing what ever there is to be revealed there's no point... only ur little self trying to glorify itself.... as I can see it wars will never end like this, either in neither out...

I think i lost faith in Krishnamurti, when it clicked that my family weren't second hand people. I looked at my mum one day, and the Krishnamurti illusion was annihilated Also, when reading kinfonet, I realised everyone was trying to talk like Krishnamurti and that they weren't at all being civilised to each other. Quite,the contrary. I came across an excellent quote from somebody on a philosophy forum, saying people , including K, were stuck in the Krishnamurti trap. Like a cockroach in a jar. They said their mother told them not to play with insects like that, and that she told them to release the cockroach. They asked if people would also like to be released from the Krishnamurti trap, like the poor cockroach. Fortunately, i'm a free cockroach now.

We don't see things as they are, we see things as we are... that's what I get from K. We see a truth then distort it with our thoughts to make the truth agreeable, creating our reality.

"Krishnamurti is fooling himself, and us, when he says that the mind can empty itself of the past."

Been reading Krishnamurti lately and in Total Freedom he says "You cannot forget the past. You cannot blot it out of your mind. That is an impossibility."

I like his writings. Don't really care about who the man actually was (haven't researched his life) since the ideas are what are important. Whether or not he did this and that is irrelevant to me. If you take anything from him, it's that the road to truth is pathless. Having been down so many paths, I'm starting to believe he is right. With a simple mind, you can find yourself. Nothing else works.

Not sure anybody is going to find anything of value on the internet. We can all start by reducing our exposure to it.

Peace out!

JK was not always right and may have changed over time - the first problem is to approach him as some kind of guru - whether he thought so or not - but the kernel of an idea contained within is immesaruable in its value to humanity - throw out thoughts of him after you understand the way your own thoughts are ambushing yourself - thats the end of the lesson if you like - its over to you now.

As he said himself - you must come with skepticism to his ideas - I did and also with a non intellectual analysis - hes not a philosopher with carefully chosen words - there will be inconsistencies in his words and his life - dont throw out the baby with the nathwater - the baby is worth saving.

Stop ham,stringing yourself with yuour own thoughts and good luck with the rest of it after that :-)

Looks like the author has only one purpose while writing this. The purpose is how to bash him. All the quotes that you referred here carried a different meaning to me.
I think the same JK words mean different things to different people and it depends on one's own temperament.

Simply you cannot comprehend. You are not free so you cannot go deep.

Reading you blog i sense you are just another leaf floating on the stream.

JK was very human, like most of us. He was attracted to a glamorous life, needed wealthy people who could support his lifestyle, and the way he accused Rosalind and and the way they split, it is all so ugly. And he was a hypocrite, advocating celibacy and a simple life. He was no different than most Indian gurus. Sex, money, legal wranglings, all of that makes him no different. People prop up JK and other gurus because of their own insecurities. Wise up.

Verify your Comment

Previewing your Comment

This is only a preview. Your comment has not yet been posted.

Your comment could not be posted. Error type:
Your comment has been posted. Post another comment

The letters and numbers you entered did not match the image. Please try again.

As a final step before posting your comment, enter the letters and numbers you see in the image below. This prevents automated programs from posting comments.

Having trouble reading this image? View an alternate.


Post a comment

Your Information

(Name is required. Email address will not be displayed with the comment.)


  • Welcome to the Church of the Churchless. If this is your first visit, click on "About this site--start here" in the Categories section below.
  • HinesSight
    Visit my other weblog, HinesSight, for a broader view of what's happening in the world of your Church unpastor, his wife, and dog.
  • BrianHines.com
    Take a look at my web site, which contains information about a subject of great interest to me: me.
  • Twitter with me
    Join Twitter and follow my tweets about whatever.
  • I Hate Church of the Churchless
    Can't stand this blog? Believe the guy behind it is an idiot? Rant away on our anti-site.