What do you think?
Rate this book
Krishnamurti and the Rajagopals
Krishnamurti and the Mary Krishnamurti and the Krishnamurti Foundation of FIRST First Edition, First Printing. Published by Krishnamurti Foundation of Ame, 1996. Octavo. Paperback. Book is very good with shelf/edgewear. Great copy of this compelling philosophical title. 100% positive feedback. 30 day money back guarantee. NEXT DAY SHIPPING! Excellent customer service. Please email with any questions. All books packed carefully and ship with free delivery confirmation/tracking. All books come with free bookmarks. Ships from Sag Harbor, New York.Seller 364005 Philosophy & Psychology We Buy Books! Collections - Libraries - Estates - Individual Titles. Message us if you have books to sell!
129 pages, Paperback
First published January 1, 1996
1 person is currently reading
31 people want to read
About the author
Mary Lutyens
43 books9 followersMary Lutyens (31 July 1908 – 9 April 1999) was a British author who is principally known for her biographical works on the philosopher Jiddu Krishnamurti.
Ratings & Reviews
Friends & Following
Create a free account to discover what your friends think of this book!
Community Reviews
Displaying 1 - 2 of 2 reviews
February 5, 2024
No one comes out of this unstained, especially Krishnamurti. For while attempting to defend the indefensible, Mary Lutyens unintentionally exposes many of his other weaknesses. Which, for a man of such apparent understanding and wisdom, you would least expect to be possessed by.
The most obvious question this book throws up is why Lutyens in her original biographies omitted to mention some serious issues in Krishnamurti's life, which only came to light in the book by Radha Rajagopal Sloss - Lives in the Shadow of J Krishnamurti.
The main detail Lutyens overlooked was none other than Krishnamurti had a long term affair with the wife of his friend. An affair, both romantic and sexual, which lead to Rosalind Rajagopal getting pregnant by Krishnamurti, twice, and having to abort the babies. Plus, his other affairs with other women were blanked out. The obvious answer was to pretend these didn't happen, to hide the truth of his life from his adoring devotees... and others.
Here is just one quote from Krishnamurti's book Education and the Significance of Life: "When there is love, sex is never a problem – it is the lack of love that creates the problem".
So that brings us to the essence of the problem with his or anyone's affairs and the abortion of babies. Is it an act of love? Can basic dishonesty, betrayal ever be an act of love? Yes, the answer is that obvious.... unlike the puerile pontificating of pap pop singers songs, love does not hurt, and if it does, it is not love.
To say "It's shows us he was human with human desires", again falls short. Krishnamurti was scathing in his analysis of human behaviour; ambitions, desires, contradictions, controls, coercions, etc. Yet there he was...
But then again, he claimed to be "other" than "the teachings". Which of course could simply be a throwback to how he was groomed by the Theosophists as a vehicle of "The World Teacher". Kind of like a Spiritualist Medium, but this was no uncle Fred who had passed over to the other side taking temporal control of Mrs Piper; "The World Teacher" was the Great Lord Maitreya, a Spiritual Master supposedly guiding humanity's evolution (not doing too good a job, I think uncle Fred would be a better replacement. If only life was a democracy).
Psychological factors are conveniently overlooked by Mary Lutyens, or perhaps so beyond her comprehension they would never have arisen in the first instance.
We read of Krishnamurti's everyday reactions to bullying, he'd rather bury his head in the sand than deal with the bully (Rajagopal) head on. Not meaning any form of violent confrontation, but simply dealing with it in a quiet but firm manner which shows that there is a problem, and we have to work it out for the good of all.
The other psychological factor which was always overlooked due to the mere acceptance that it was necessary was what is known as "The Process". This involved Krishnamurti suffering "great pain in the spine and brain", which according to Krishnamurti ws necessary to "Purify the brain". Now, knowing what I know of the nervous system and brain, I know there is no process which would "purify" which involves great pain, especially pain which would result in fainting, severe exhaustion, etc, as experienced by Krishnamurti. I mean, the brain purifies itself every night without people waking in agony. A well nourished brain and nervous system does not adversely react.
Another condition which Krishnamurti suffered from, "feeling sick with shock" when the Rajagopals were arguing in the cottage next door, etc. But of course, he was so special and super sensitive. Perhaps the truth may have been that he simply didn't like the thought of his lover suffering from the volley of vocal abuse by her husband. Or, he had built up an aversion to all forms of violent conduct (apart from cheating on his friend, which somehow he did not attribute to a form of violence). Aversions he had too, wouldn't even open nor handle a letter sent by Rosalind as he didn't want to be "soiled" by touching the thing himself and had Lutyens do the "dirty" deed or holding it and reading aloud.
Factors such as malnutrition, unresolved emotional issues, etc, do not enter Mary Lutyens thought. She simply and blindly accepts... because this is Krishnamurti (the World Teacher)... with whom she was "completely infatuated and in love with from a teenager".
Anytime I've read a biography of Krishnamurti, I am always struck by the naivety of those surrounding him, of the blind belief and devotion given to him. This book is no exception, Mary Lutyens comes over as a starstruck love sick fan completely lacking objectivity.
Bias, such a bugger.
In this book, Lutyens paints Rajagopal and his wife as brutes, same with Radha Rajagopal Sloss for daring to write her version of her story. The latter had known Krishnamurti from her birth, and Krishnamurti was like a second father to her. So why is her story of Krishnamurti of any less value to those interested? To Lutyens, Krishnamurti is unblemished, beyond blame or reproach. Only her side of the story is accurate, even though she admits to being entirely entangled emotionally.
Why wouldn't anyone with insight into the human personality not know how to put an end to personal abuse, overlook his secretary embezzling funds, etc? These are simple matters to be dealt with, without any police involvement, without any nastiness. Krishnamurti comes over as a weak, crass individual, full of the usual contradictions, and very dependent upon others.
Can we separate the teacher from the teachings? Only if the teacher knows that they are not the source of the teachings. And if not the source then who was or is? This indeed is why we cannot have teachers when it comes to “the spiritual”, to the unknown. Only our own awakened insight is of value... and as Krishnamurti rightly said “Truth is a pathless land”. He should have left it there but went crazy giving conclusive advice on every aspect of life... apart from his own that is.
The most obvious question this book throws up is why Lutyens in her original biographies omitted to mention some serious issues in Krishnamurti's life, which only came to light in the book by Radha Rajagopal Sloss - Lives in the Shadow of J Krishnamurti.
The main detail Lutyens overlooked was none other than Krishnamurti had a long term affair with the wife of his friend. An affair, both romantic and sexual, which lead to Rosalind Rajagopal getting pregnant by Krishnamurti, twice, and having to abort the babies. Plus, his other affairs with other women were blanked out. The obvious answer was to pretend these didn't happen, to hide the truth of his life from his adoring devotees... and others.
Here is just one quote from Krishnamurti's book Education and the Significance of Life: "When there is love, sex is never a problem – it is the lack of love that creates the problem".
So that brings us to the essence of the problem with his or anyone's affairs and the abortion of babies. Is it an act of love? Can basic dishonesty, betrayal ever be an act of love? Yes, the answer is that obvious.... unlike the puerile pontificating of pap pop singers songs, love does not hurt, and if it does, it is not love.
To say "It's shows us he was human with human desires", again falls short. Krishnamurti was scathing in his analysis of human behaviour; ambitions, desires, contradictions, controls, coercions, etc. Yet there he was...
But then again, he claimed to be "other" than "the teachings". Which of course could simply be a throwback to how he was groomed by the Theosophists as a vehicle of "The World Teacher". Kind of like a Spiritualist Medium, but this was no uncle Fred who had passed over to the other side taking temporal control of Mrs Piper; "The World Teacher" was the Great Lord Maitreya, a Spiritual Master supposedly guiding humanity's evolution (not doing too good a job, I think uncle Fred would be a better replacement. If only life was a democracy).
Psychological factors are conveniently overlooked by Mary Lutyens, or perhaps so beyond her comprehension they would never have arisen in the first instance.
We read of Krishnamurti's everyday reactions to bullying, he'd rather bury his head in the sand than deal with the bully (Rajagopal) head on. Not meaning any form of violent confrontation, but simply dealing with it in a quiet but firm manner which shows that there is a problem, and we have to work it out for the good of all.
The other psychological factor which was always overlooked due to the mere acceptance that it was necessary was what is known as "The Process". This involved Krishnamurti suffering "great pain in the spine and brain", which according to Krishnamurti ws necessary to "Purify the brain". Now, knowing what I know of the nervous system and brain, I know there is no process which would "purify" which involves great pain, especially pain which would result in fainting, severe exhaustion, etc, as experienced by Krishnamurti. I mean, the brain purifies itself every night without people waking in agony. A well nourished brain and nervous system does not adversely react.
Another condition which Krishnamurti suffered from, "feeling sick with shock" when the Rajagopals were arguing in the cottage next door, etc. But of course, he was so special and super sensitive. Perhaps the truth may have been that he simply didn't like the thought of his lover suffering from the volley of vocal abuse by her husband. Or, he had built up an aversion to all forms of violent conduct (apart from cheating on his friend, which somehow he did not attribute to a form of violence). Aversions he had too, wouldn't even open nor handle a letter sent by Rosalind as he didn't want to be "soiled" by touching the thing himself and had Lutyens do the "dirty" deed or holding it and reading aloud.
Factors such as malnutrition, unresolved emotional issues, etc, do not enter Mary Lutyens thought. She simply and blindly accepts... because this is Krishnamurti (the World Teacher)... with whom she was "completely infatuated and in love with from a teenager".
Anytime I've read a biography of Krishnamurti, I am always struck by the naivety of those surrounding him, of the blind belief and devotion given to him. This book is no exception, Mary Lutyens comes over as a starstruck love sick fan completely lacking objectivity.
Bias, such a bugger.
In this book, Lutyens paints Rajagopal and his wife as brutes, same with Radha Rajagopal Sloss for daring to write her version of her story. The latter had known Krishnamurti from her birth, and Krishnamurti was like a second father to her. So why is her story of Krishnamurti of any less value to those interested? To Lutyens, Krishnamurti is unblemished, beyond blame or reproach. Only her side of the story is accurate, even though she admits to being entirely entangled emotionally.
Why wouldn't anyone with insight into the human personality not know how to put an end to personal abuse, overlook his secretary embezzling funds, etc? These are simple matters to be dealt with, without any police involvement, without any nastiness. Krishnamurti comes over as a weak, crass individual, full of the usual contradictions, and very dependent upon others.
Can we separate the teacher from the teachings? Only if the teacher knows that they are not the source of the teachings. And if not the source then who was or is? This indeed is why we cannot have teachers when it comes to “the spiritual”, to the unknown. Only our own awakened insight is of value... and as Krishnamurti rightly said “Truth is a pathless land”. He should have left it there but went crazy giving conclusive advice on every aspect of life... apart from his own that is.
January 1, 2022
This book is a joke!
Displaying 1 - 2 of 2 reviews