False Gods

Why do we erect false gods?

Me of all people too… I can not believe it. I erected a false god. His name was J. Krishnamurti. And now I see through his bullshit, some of it is very good bullshit indeed and still makes sense. Please still go out there and read his books but my God he is a false good of putridity.


Here is how I found out. Follow the link if you want to learn more.

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 th ing 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.”

The point is that everyone talks shit. Me included. In Dr. Hyatt’s words :- we are all bio-machines and feed of our own crap. That’s not what he said by the way!

Again, I will say, no more guru’s. No more teachers!


7 thoughts on “False Gods

  1. Vukini, seriously?

    Why are you casting stones, who cares about what Krishnamurti did outside of his message. Krishnamurti the man is just that… a man I could care less about the man… he is anonymous but the messages are truth.

    What possible good can come of uncovering his past indiscretions? NONE.

    I understand your reaction, I initially had the same sour taste in my mouth when I first heard about this some time ago but then I took a step back and said to myself… who am I to judge?

    I have no business judging this man nor do I want to, its unproductive and quite frankly would reflect poorly on me. If anything I’m glad he had a relationship and above all I UNDERSTAND.

    For god sake he’s a human being and he’s DEAD, like I wish this topic would be.

    If you’ve seriously understood any of the messages that came THROUGH him NOT from him… sweet Mahatma Ghandi I hope you can laugh at your knee jerk reaction to judge him… see it for what it is and let the past be in the past so you can LIVE right now.

    This is all to reminiscent of any great teacher in the past, people always want to tear them down. Forget about the MAN… Krishnamurti was just a MAN nobody special, the truth came through him that is all.

    With respect.

    By the way if you’d like to hit up my blog I’ve got hours of -K- videos amongst other teachers.



    ~ Echo

  2. Dear Echo,

    Thank you for your message. I have been reading your blog to get a better idea of what you think and I think it’s great, I shall follow your thoughts now on in… Where do you get the great images by the way?

    Regarding my post on ‘False Gods’, I wasn’t making myself clear, probably cause I don’t think anyone actually reads what I am saying… so it’s a kind of public diary of my thinking for me.

    I tend to agree that the ‘truth’ (for lack of a better word) of a teaching must be in someway independent of the teacher who spoke those words. In that sense I have not abandoned what I have learned from the multitudes of books I have read by him nor the hours of videos that I have watched.

    What I was trying to comment on was my very own creation and elevation in my mind of -K- to a kind of GOD. Unconsciously or consciously I had elevated him to this status and that was wholly wrong. It took to learning of his ‘extracurricular’ activities to realise this fact and that kind of annoyed me. It’s kind of disheartening also to realise that perhaps the one guy that you thought had managed to escape the conditioning hadn’t. It make you feel like ‘if he couldn’t, who can?’

    Anyway, it doesn’t detract from the fact that if we don’t raise our own awareness of who we are and to why we think what we think, then we are effectively nothing but zombies. Well that is what I think anyway.



  3. Ahhhhh ha!

    I understand now. Man I actually have been mindful of the same thing in myself… trying not to put him up on a throne. Funny thing is he often reminds people in his talks to ignore the speaker and listen to the message.

    Thanks for writing back!


    ~ Echo

  4. i did not quite understand the expectation of jiddu’s celibacy in the post. he never claimed celibacy nor denounced it for it was a matter of no consequence. there were other much too serious topics he spent time looking at and pointing out.
    he must have shared something special with rosalind. who knows.

    no one has to follow anyone but just continue the inquiry.

  5. Jay,

    there are two parts to the post on ‘false gods’.

    1) what I think and,

    2) what link to the message board says.

    I will try to answer your comment from both perspectives.

    From my perspective all that I was trying to say was that I had erected a ‘false god’. I wrongly assumed that Krishnamurti lived what he preached and to me that was ‘godly’.

    You are right in saying that he never preached ‘celibacy’, but he definitely did not preach ‘having secret affairs’ or about having ‘fear of public opinion against him’. Krishnamurti was wholeheartedly for the confrontation with fear, with all emotion for that matter and believed this the way to solving the ‘problems’ of humanity.

    Also the post messages say:

    “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….’”

    That’s the most important aspect from the post, I think. Krishnamurti was very explicit in saying that the division within man himself is the cause of suffering and madness in this world. He gave the impression (intentionally or not) that he himself had transcended this ‘division’.

    Now, it appears that he was divided like the rest of us. And that’s not all, it appears that he (intentionally) misguided people on this issue.

    It may be also argued that, he was a proponent of universal consciousness, so all human flaws must have existed in him as well.

    However, does all that make what he said valid or invalid?

    let me put it in another way.

    Communists believed (or believe) a set of principles (i.e. a system) that when applied to the idealised human race would solve all social problems. This idealization of humanity does not exist and thus it failed miserably.

    Does that make the ideal imagination wrong? I should answer no.

    Krishnamurti said that it is not the system that needs to change but man in ‘himself’ must transform and transcend all authority, all systems.

    Now does that make his alternative correct. Again, I should on the same premise answer NO. For It is an idealization of even greater proportion.

  6. the Spirit is willing, but the Flesh is not. Krishnamurti is not the only man who strove for an ideal that was incompatible with human nature. i think the most defining of our traits is the precisely human yearning to be more than human: a bittersweet gift of culture and consciousness. i think everyone realizes that human actions are the problem, that human nature is the cause. and i cannot condemn anyone for hoping for a solution… for believing that we can find some true path to building a culture to save us from ourselves. though, admittedly, it has not happened yet. and i suspect we are still a long way from it.
    as for false gods: idolatry is our nature too… our aesthetic sense of aversion to idolatry is a cultural legacy at odds with our genes. and here we are where we started, usually a good place to stop: the Spirit is willing but the Flesh is weak.

  7. “There are three monks, who had been sitting in deep meditation for many years amidst the Himalayan snow peaks, never speaking a word, in utter silence. One morning, one of the three suddenly speaks up and says, ‘What a lovely morning this is.’ And he falls silent again. Five years of silence pass, when all at once the second monk speaks up and says, ‘But we could do with some rain.’ There is silence among them for another five years, when suddenly the third monk says, ‘Why can’t you two stop chattering?”


Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out /  Change )

Google photo

You are commenting using your Google account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s