Krishnamurti & the Art of Awakening
General Discussion | moderated by Dev Singh

cuckoo in other bird's nest...


Displaying posts 1 - 30 of 96 in total
Sat, 08 Aug 2015 #1
Thumb_man_question_mark dhirendra singh India 2984 posts in this forum Offline

I was reading Radha's book, 'shadow...', mainly because I was interested in detail of activities of "cuckoo in other bird's nest..." but there was not much. ;)
She written the book in the theme as Indian film maker makes movie, with three permanent factors...
1. Raja the hero, 2. Rosalind the heroin and 3. K the villain...
And if K got anything in his personal life, it was because of Rosalind, and if K succeeded in his teaching it was because of Raja...
Really daughters are too good...well, whatever she has written, i will thank her for including chapter " cuckoo in other birds nest", ....Romancing K:)

I don't know

Sign in to recommend  This post has been recommended by 2 readers
Back to Top
Sat, 08 Aug 2015 #2
Thumb_stringio randall merryman United States 3832 posts in this forum ACCOUNT DELETED

dhirendra singh wrote:
" cuckoo in other birds nest", ....Romancing K:)

Implications being what? That K was a "randy bugger"? That he let his sexual desires/instincts upset the local/universal traditional norms/values/morals? Maybe it's just possible that the human entity can be much less unbalanced psychologically, but still be the wild beast his/her natural heritage dictates? ;)

Stuff happens

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Sat, 08 Aug 2015 #3
Thumb_img_0244 Jack Pine United States 5770 posts in this forum Offline

Have you ever seen a picture of Roselind when she was young? She was extremely beautiful and probably very charming. Krishnamurti, especially in his later years, never said don't have sex. He said don't make a problem out of it. If you're going to do it then do it.

I don't know who K was but he seemed completely comfortable and natural in whatever he was doing. In so many ways he was like everyone else and in so many other ways he was like no one I have ever met. He was a person who, for whatever reasons, had tapped into what is beyond the known. Some people I have known who were really devoted to K, worked for K, were close to K dropped him completely when they found out about his relationship with Roselind. Apparently they had an image of K that they couldn't reconcile with the reality of K.

If you go into what K pointed out thinking he was another Christ or Buddha you aren't listening to what he said. You're building an image of K based on your conditioning of what a "spiritual leader" should be. This is one of the reasons, in my opinion, that the more you have read of religious doctrines, the more you have worshipped some religious figure (Christ, Buddha, whomever) the more difficult it will be for you to see K as he really was and to listen to what he had to say without the inevitable images of your prior religious conditioning being transferred, superimposed to him.

I have talked about this at some length with someone who was very close to K, someone I've been friends with for nearly 40 years, and who is still with the KFA and we both feel that whatever K did or didn't do has nothing to do with what he tapped into and told the rest of us about. As Mary Lutyens used to say K was a man in every sense of the word.

Sign in to recommend  This post has been recommended by 2 readers
Back to Top
Sat, 08 Aug 2015 #4
Thumb_patricia_may_2014_reduced_ Patricia Hemingway Australia 1929 posts in this forum Offline

"Rosalind the heroin" - I like that. Goes really well with "Raja the hero".

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Sat, 08 Aug 2015 #5
Thumb_patricia_may_2014_reduced_ Patricia Hemingway Australia 1929 posts in this forum Offline

Jack Pine wrote:
If you go into what K pointed out thinking he was another Christ or Buddha you aren't listening to what he said. You're building an image of K based on your conditioning of what a "spiritual leader" should be.

This is true.

Sign in to recommend  This post has been recommended by 1 reader
Back to Top
Sat, 08 Aug 2015 #6
Thumb_stringio Bobby D United States 589 posts in this forum ACCOUNT DELETED

Fidelity is unnatural

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Sat, 08 Aug 2015 #7
Thumb_stringio Frank Smith United States 32 posts in this forum ACCOUNT DELETED

Mary Lutyens "Krishnamurti and The Rajagopals" :

This is a personal reply to Lives in the Shadow with J Krishnamurti by
Radha Rajagopal Sloss (London, 1991).

The publishers of this book claim that it was written "in a spirit of
tenderness, fairness, objective inquiry and no little remorse", yet the
author rarely misses an opportunity to belittle Krishnamurti; it contains
many misstatements of fact, false inferences and snide innuendoes, and it is
heavily biased in an attempt to justify the author's parents at
Krishnamurti's expense.

Radha Sloss (RS in future) has taken such pains to make out that K (as I
shall now call him) was a liar, that anything said by K's friends as to what
he told them can, RS implies, be dismissed as a lie. The author even goes
so far as to write that my mother, K's oldest friend, who had known him from
1911 until her death in 1964, had called him "a congenital liar". I will
never believe this without written proof I knew her feelings for him too
well. We are supposed to assume that everything Krishnamurti said which the
Rajagopals objected to was a lie whereas everything unsubstantiated they
choose to say is the truth.

RS's main accusation against Krishnamurti is that he had a physical
relationship for many years with her mother, Rosalind Rajagopal, while
maintaining "a chaste image". The physical relationship is not in dispute
and should not come as a shock. It certainly did not surprise or shock me
when K told me about it. I knew about his relationship with Rosalind before
I wrote the last volume of my biography but did not realize that Rosalind
wanted her adultery broadcast to the world. I have always stressed that
Krishnamurti was physically a perfectly normal man.

As for its being a secret affair, was K supposed to go about saying that
Rosalind was his mistress? It was her concern as much as his. And he never
"presented" himself as being celibate. According to the tenets of
Leadbeater-Theosophy, celibacy was essential for any aspirant to the Path of
Discipleship but K broke away entirely from Theosophy and its tenets in 1929
and thereafter often spoke publicly against celibacy. Here are a few
quotations from his published talks to prove this point: "So-called holy men
have maintained that you cannot come near God if you indulge in sex,
therefore they push it aside although they are eaten up with it. But by
denying sexuality they put out their eyes and cut out their tongues for they
deny the whole beauty of the earth. They have starved their hearts
and minds; they are dehydrated human beings; they have banished beauty
because beauty is associated with woman." And again: "I think we should
understand what love and chastity are. The vow of chastity is not chastity
at all, for below the words the craving goes on and trying to suppress it in
different ways, religious and otherwise, is a form of ugliness which, in its
very essence, is unchaste. The chastity of the monk, with his vows and
denials, is essentially worldliness which is unchaste. All forms of
resistance build a wall of separateness which turns life into a battlefield;
and so life becomes not chaste at all." And yet again: "To deny sex is
another form of brutality; it is there, it is a fact. When we are
intellectual slaves, endlessly repeating what others have said, when we are
following, obeying, imitating, then a whole avenue of life is closed; when
action is merely a mechanical repetition and not a free movement, then there
is no release; when there is this incessant urge to fulfil, to be, then we
are emotionally thwarted, there is a blockage. So sex becomes the one issue
which is our very own, which is not second-hand. And in the act of sex
there is a forgetting of oneself, one's problems and one's fears. In that
act there is no self at all."

In answer to a question he was asked at a public meeting, "Is it possible
for a man and a woman to live together, to have sex and children, without
all the turmoil, bitterness and conflict in such a relationship?" K said,
"Can't you fall in love and not have a possessive relationship? I love
someone and she loves me and we get married-that is all perfectly
straightforward and simple, in that there is no conflict at all. (When we
say we get married I might just as well say we decide to live together.)
Can't one have that without the other? Without the tail, as it were,
necessarily following? Can't two people be in love and both be so
intelligent and so sensitive that there is freedom and an absence of a
centre that makes conflict? Conflict is not in the feeling of being in
love. The feeling of being in love is utterly without conflict. There is
no loss of energy in being in love. The loss of energy Is in the
tail-jealousy, possessiveness, suspicion, doubt, the fear of losing that
love, the constant demand for reassurance and security. Surely it must be
possible to function in a sexual relationship with someone you love without
the nightmare which usually follows. Of course it is."

Are these the words of a man pretending to be celibate? People who are
disturbed and disillusioned by the fact that K had a physical affair should
inquire of themselves whether they have not been projecting on him their own
conventional image of what "a holy man" should be.

What K had to experience with Rosalind Rajagopal after some years was
"the tail". She became jealous, possessive and suspicious, thus ruining
what had once been a beautiful relationship.

Sign in to recommend  This post has been recommended by 2 readers
Back to Top
Sat, 08 Aug 2015 #8
Thumb_stringio Pavil Davidov Poland 4402 posts in this forum ACCOUNT DELETED

Lutyens would say that, wouldn't she. I think Radha's book kicked her in the love pump. That's all.

"Wherever you go, there you are." Insight from Mullah Nasruddin

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Sat, 08 Aug 2015 #9
Thumb_stringio Pavil Davidov Poland 4402 posts in this forum ACCOUNT DELETED

dhirendra singh wrote:
1. Raja the hero

Interesting to hear your impression, Dhirendra. Forgive me as I can't recall something. Where and how does Radha paint her father a "hero?"

"Wherever you go, there you are." Insight from Mullah Nasruddin

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Sat, 08 Aug 2015 #10
Thumb_stringio Pavil Davidov Poland 4402 posts in this forum ACCOUNT DELETED

Patricia Hemingway wrote:
"Rosalind the heroin" - I like that.

Such a pure heart you have :-)

"Wherever you go, there you are." Insight from Mullah Nasruddin

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Sat, 08 Aug 2015 #11
Thumb_img_0244 Jack Pine United States 5770 posts in this forum Offline

Bobby D wrote:
Fidelity is unnatural

You've been talking to my first wife?

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Sat, 08 Aug 2015 #12
Thumb_stringio Pavil Davidov Poland 4402 posts in this forum ACCOUNT DELETED

Jack Pine wrote:

Bobby D wrote:

Fidelity is unnatural

You've been talking to my first wife?

haha . . . well hi-fidelity gives a pretty natural sound. Gimme a hi-fi bro!

"Wherever you go, there you are." Insight from Mullah Nasruddin

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Sun, 09 Aug 2015 #13
Thumb_man_question_mark dhirendra singh India 2984 posts in this forum Offline

Pavil Davidov wrote:
Interesting to hear your impression, Dhirendra. Forgive me as I can't recall something. Where and how does Radha paint her father a "hero?"

:) Hi Paul...well book has three main character, and in bollywood style, if I search for hero among these three, K doesn't fit there, its Raja.

I don't know

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Sun, 09 Aug 2015 #14
Thumb_man_question_mark dhirendra singh India 2984 posts in this forum Offline

Frank Smith wrote:
Mary Lutyens "Krishnamurti and The Rajagopals" :

Yes, its other side of coin...

p.s. i have not read this book...can you send its soft-copy... ?

I don't know

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Sun, 09 Aug 2015 #15
Thumb_man_question_mark dhirendra singh India 2984 posts in this forum Offline

Patricia Hemingway wrote:
"Rosalind the heroin" - I like that. Goes really well with "Raja the hero".

:)

I don't know

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Sun, 09 Aug 2015 #16
Thumb_man_question_mark dhirendra singh India 2984 posts in this forum Offline

Jack Pine wrote:
Have you ever seen a picture of Roselind when she was young? She was extremely beautiful and probably very charming. Krishnamurti, especially in his later years, never said don't have sex. He said don't make a problem out of it. If you're going to do it then do it.

fully agreed...

I don't know

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Sun, 09 Aug 2015 #17
Thumb_man_question_mark dhirendra singh India 2984 posts in this forum Offline

randall merryman wrote:
Implications being what? That K was a "randy bugger"? That he let his sexual desires/instincts upset the local/universal traditional norms/values/morals? Maybe it's just possible that the human entity can be much less unbalanced psychologically, but still be the wild beast his/her natural heritage dictates? ;)

Well, I liked K's secret affair...really missed K's love letters...curious how an enlightened write love letter....like, darlings can't live without you a moment...my heart beats only for you or it would be different?

Though it was hard to swallow that K forced rosa for abortion, why was he not using protection ?....

I don't know

This post was last updated by dhirendra singh Sun, 09 Aug 2015.

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Sun, 09 Aug 2015 #18
Thumb_img_7089_copy Eve G. Indonesia 1570 posts in this forum Offline

Hi Dhi, I see all the old friends are still here talking about K's love affairs. All these people are dead and we are still alive, why not talk about our love affairs and let the dead rest?

The nature of the change from disorder is silence.

Sign in to recommend  This post has been recommended by 1 reader
Back to Top
Sun, 09 Aug 2015 #19
Thumb_3203 Anonymous . Reunion 71 posts in this forum Offline

I wonder why you are interested in all that so much? Isn't it a form of violence when man's privacy purposely is violated? Or do you want to be similar to Krishnamurti in your behavior? Or simply you have nothing to do and all these speculations gives you pleasure?

Sign in to recommend  This post has been recommended by 3 readers
Back to Top
Sun, 09 Aug 2015 #20
Thumb_stringio randall merryman United States 3832 posts in this forum ACCOUNT DELETED

dhirendra singh wrote:
...curious how an enlightened write love letter....like, darlings can't live without you a moment...my heart beats only for you or it would be different?

You bring up an excellent point sir. The expectation of the dualism/choice machinery. We/the mind have/has to put everything into it's proper category. Either-or. K was either, just like all men or, perfect. A Saint, as it were. I'll just suggest that life and living (even K's life) are far too complex to be properly digested by the structures previously mentioned.

Is she saying that K lost his virginity, to this babe?

What, uh, forms of birth control were available back in the day? We're talking 1930's and 40's, aren't we?

Stuff happens

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Sun, 09 Aug 2015 #21
Thumb_stringio Pavil Davidov Poland 4402 posts in this forum ACCOUNT DELETED

dhirendra singh wrote:

Pavil Davidov wrote:

Interesting to hear your impression, Dhirendra. Forgive me as I can't recall something. Where and how does Radha paint her father a "hero?"

:) Hi Paul...well book has three main character, and in bollywood style, if I search for hero among these three, K doesn't fit there, its Raja.

Oh, that's OK then . . . I thought you may have actually read Radha painting her father as a hero. My recollection, you see, is that she said her father was very distant, almost anal about organizational matters but emotionally blank and so on. Her hero growing up was her "Krinch" who she said was much more of a father to her, was emotionally present and so on.

But, ignoring the fact that the book is autobiographical, you started from the Bollywood cliche and fitted your three fictional characters in splendidly. You make a song and dance over the whole thing.

"Wherever you go, there you are." Insight from Mullah Nasruddin

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Sun, 09 Aug 2015 #22
Thumb_stringio Joan Galbraith France 713 posts in this forum ACCOUNT DELETED

Jack Pine wrote:
If you go into what K pointed out thinking he was another Christ or Buddha you aren't listening to what he said.

The crucial point always gets missed: was there any concurrence in their teachings?

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Sun, 09 Aug 2015 #23
Thumb_original_avatar max greene United States 5845 posts in this forum Offline

Anonymous . wrote:
I wonder why you are interested in all that so much? Isn't it a form of violence when man's privacy purposely is violated? Or do you want to be similar to Krishnamurti in your behavior? Or simply you have nothing to do and all these speculations gives you pleasure?

Yes. Peeping into others' private lives -- maybe all of biography -- is a form of voyeurism. Mild, perhaps, but voyeurism nonetheless.

max

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Sun, 09 Aug 2015 #24
Thumb_img_0244 Jack Pine United States 5770 posts in this forum Offline

Who gives a shit if there is any concurrance? Do not compare.

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Sun, 09 Aug 2015 #25
Thumb_avatar david sharma Ireland 274 posts in this forum Offline

Only small ignorant, stupid minds discuss others

Sign in to recommend  This post has been recommended by 1 reader
Back to Top
Sun, 09 Aug 2015 #26
Thumb_stringio Joan Galbraith France 713 posts in this forum ACCOUNT DELETED

Jack Pine wrote:
Who gives a shit if there is any concurrence? Do not compare.

The fact is that if two differently worded sayings expose an identical truth but an individual sees only one of them as true then in chances are they are not seeing either of them but are upholding one on the basis of authority; ie on the basis of their conditioning.

This post was last updated by Joan Galbraith (account deleted) Sun, 09 Aug 2015.

Sign in to recommend  This post has been recommended by 1 reader
Back to Top
Sun, 09 Aug 2015 #27
Thumb_img_0244 Jack Pine United States 5770 posts in this forum Offline

You remain an idiot John what you fail to understand is any knowledge especially comparison of knowledge is worthless but you worship knowledge you worship the word forget it John you have no idea what Krishnamurti is talking about.

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Sun, 09 Aug 2015 #28
Thumb_stringio Joan Galbraith France 713 posts in this forum ACCOUNT DELETED

Jack Pine wrote:
John what you fail to understand is any knowledge especially comparison of knowledge is worthless...

Jack, old bean, if something is true and seen to be true, then with regard to that particular the person seeing it doesn't have knowledge of it but simply sees it. They don't have knowledge they have 'seeing'. To be more accurate they actually are (ie they consist in) 'seeing'. I am not being demeaning when I say that I can understand that such a concept may be difficult but the fact is - as I think you have quite properly highlighted before now - that nobody can 'know' the truth; it can only be seen. Which translates as it is possible for truth to be seen by a person but not known. If it were to be the case that it was not possible for anybody to see the truth, then, as I have pointed out a number of times in the past, K was a charlatan. Which of course he wasn't.

This post was last updated by Joan Galbraith (account deleted) Sun, 09 Aug 2015.

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Sun, 09 Aug 2015 #29
Thumb_img_0244 Jack Pine United States 5770 posts in this forum Offline

John do you also see what a deluded fool you are.

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Sun, 09 Aug 2015 #30
Thumb_original_avatar max greene United States 5845 posts in this forum Offline

Joan Galbraith wrote:
. . . it is possible for truth to be seen by a person but not known.

Absolutely so, John. This is what it is all about.

Awareness is sensing, sensing in all of its forms and ways. We sense, we are aware, but the actual awareness of whatever it might be is not what we remember. Our awareness is recorded as memory, and it is this memory that we remember and think about. Memory is the "known."

It is impossible to recall or think about awareness. Only memory can be recalled and thought about. We can never be conscious of awareness but awareness is always there, to an even greater extent than thinking and thought.

max

This post was last updated by max greene Sun, 09 Aug 2015.

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Displaying posts 1 - 30 of 96 in total
To quote a portion of this post in your reply, first select the text and then click this "Quote" link.

(N.B. Be sure to insert an empty line between the quoted text and your reply.)