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

Krishnamurti (to ramadoss)

Jun 05, 1996 12:56 PM
by Jerry Hejka-Ekins

>MKR: From what I have read and known from a friend who had known
>him for a long time, K never owned any car or for that manner
>anything except his clothing, a wallet and a couple of Patek
>Phillipe watches. I am sure the Benz you saw was not owned by

Doss, you are splitting hairs.  But technically, you are correct,
Krishnamurti did not own a car or anything else outside of
personal items.  Everything is owned by KFA, a non profit
corporation dedicated to publishing everything K uttered.  But if
you think that K lived in poverty or was materially deprived in
any way, you are very mistaken.  Actually, I think having full
use of everything one needs and desires, yet having everything
belong to a non profit corporation is better than owning
anything.  You get free use of everything yet you don't have to
buy it, pay taxes on it or even pay for its upkeep.

>He always used to travel in First Class and he was asked why he
>did so when Gandhi travelled in Third (Lowest) Class. His
>response was that he would like to see everyone travel in First
>Class. An incident that Ravi Ravindra witnessed (and has written
>about) showed that K was at ease in most affluent surroundings
>as well as in the most simplest ones which should not be

Which very well makes my point.  Krishnamurti was not one who
sacrificed any personal comforts.  To say the least, he lived in
far better material comfort than the average American wage
earner.  He was at ease in affluent surroundings because those
are the surroundings he has lived in since he was taken into the
TS's care.  Krishnamurti was a globe trotter from childhood.
These kind of people become very sophisticated about being at
ease in all different surroundings.

>>On the other hand, under the expert management of Rajagopal and
>>some really slick legal maneuvers, the Krishnamurti Foundation

>MKR: Can you amplify what these are?  Only legal maneuvers I
>know of Rajagopal (who BTW is a lawyer educated and trained in
>London) and the K Trusts happened on account of the suit filed
>by the Attorney General of CA and the new K Foundation against
>Rajagopal and the old K Charitable Trusts. Later, Rajagopal and
>the Trustees sued K and the Trustees of the current KFA.
>Interestingly enough, one of those Trustees who was sued by Atty
>General of CA (and has the unique honor of suing Krishnamurti
>and others) is a member of TSA and was an elected Board Member
>of TSA and is currently an appointed Board Member of TSA.

Yes, there has been quite a history of lawsuits around KFA.  They
go in one ear and out the other for me.  The "really slick
maneuver" I had in mind was Ragagopal's claiming that EVERYTHING
Krishnamurti said or wrote in his entire life belongs to the
Foundation.  Lady Emily got into this problem in the 1950's with
CANDLES IN THE SUN, when she was going to publish some personal
letters to her from Krishnamurti.  She was told that she had no
legal right to publish those letters--that the content of those
letters belong to the Foundation.  That was a slick move in the
1950's and was without precedent.  It wasn't until thirty years
later with the legal battle over the ownership of J.D. Salanger's
personal letters to others that KFA's claim was ever really
tested.  Now I call that slick.  Rajagopal was the type of lawyer
I would want on my side if I got into a legal tangle.

>>So, regarding your question: "Was [CWL] all that off every time
>>in all `his' opinions?"  I don't know.  The odds are that CWL
>>had to have been right about some things.  But it is clear to
>>me that Krishnamurti was not one of the things he was right

>MKR: I agree that CWL was not right about CWL's expectation how
>K is going to teach with the help of the Apostles created in

>However, K's ideas and discussion of various matters dealing
>with human issues has arrested the attention of a large number
>of people and based on what I see on the K's maillist, they have
>helped and affected the lives of many. This contribution of his
>is important to be taken into consideration. Anyone interested
>may want to subscribe to listening-l and see for themselves.

No doubt K has changed the lives of many.  No doubt, there are
many more who have been unaffected by him.  But how does this
make him any different from the many other spiritual teachers?
Please understand that I have no criticism of K or of his
message.  But I find it very strange to see so many people
following and hanging on to every word uttered by a man who kept
telling everybody  not to follow him or to hang onto his words.

>>He was surrounded by tutors and had
>>the opportunity to go to the best schools in the world.  He

>As far as I have read, I do not think he ever went any of the
>*best* schools. Have you found any specific details of the
>schools he attended?

I said that he had the *opportunity.*  K's experiences with
University life is well outlined by his biographers.  Alexis'
post sort of summarizes them, but I didn't take the time to go
back through the documents, or even the biographies to confirm
his points, but they more or less reflect what I recall:

>As I understand it: Krishnamurti attended but did not
>matriculate at the Universite de Paris (The sorbonne) and The
>university of Wurzburg (as did I) and attempted to Matriculate
>at Oxford but was driven from the school by the hostility of the
>other students who made very cruel fun of "The Little Avatar".
>Announcing a boy to be "The second Coming" and sending that same
>boy to a public school is a very cruel and thoughtless act.

My understanding is that the above mentioned Universities are
world class i.e. the "best schools."  They are attended by the
children of the most privileged families.  I wish I could have
had such opportunities.  But alas, I'm hardly from a privileged
family--let alone an educated one.

>>I like
>>K's teachings very much, but is he the returned Christ?  I
>>don't think so.

>I don't think any one can be certain about whether he is the
>returned Christ or not. If he is the returned Christ, then you
>have the problem of the religions like Hindu, Buddhism, Moslem
>etc rejecting him because it is not their prophet or Avatar who
>is returning. Just a thought.  If he really the returned Christ
>he would have had severe problems from the various Christian
>denominations all over world - some accepting and some

I only expressed my opinion.  You are of course welcome to yours.
I have a rather extensive collection of very scarce Krishnamurti
material here.  Some of it is from a very early point in his
career when he was promoted as the returned Christ.  The Churches
gave the TS a lot of flack about this claim early on so CWL and
AB quickly backed off on this and introduced the idea that he was
the vehicle for the "Maitreya,"  who was supposed to be the real
being behind many spiritual teachers including Jesus and the
Buddha.  This shift removed them from the firing line of the
Churches and also gave K a more universal appeal.

   |Jerry Hejka-Ekins,                      |
      |Member TI, TSA, TSP, ULT                |
         |Please reply to:   |
            |and CC to       |

[Back to Top]

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