Talk:Jiddu Krishnamurti

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This is a controversial topic that may be under dispute. Please read this page and discuss substantial changes here before making them.
Make sure to supply full citations when adding information and consider tagging or removing uncited/unciteable information.

This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Jiddu Krishnamurti article.
Article policies
Archives: 1, 2
This article is within the scope of the following WikiProjects:


Archive
Archives
1, 2


Contents

[edit] UN peace medal??

I'm a pretty well informed person about Krishnamurti, but hadn't heard about him having gotten a peace medal from the UN in 1984. Is there a source to confirm this? http://www.un.org/Depts/dpko/medals/ says that UN peacemedals are awarded for specific peace missions since 2000. Doesn't quite fit the bill for Jiddu Krishnamurti who was a spiritual teacher with few political interests.

I don't know whether he got a medal or not, but you can view his speech before the UN in it's entirety here: http://krishnamurti-for-you.com/ I can understand your doubt, there's something rather humorous about the whole idea of giving Krishnamurti a medal. I don't think I'd want to be the one to try it.  :-)

[edit] Intro

The intro is too long.--Jack Upland 10:34, 15 November 2007 (UTC)

Yes, one theory is that most of this page might be replaced by giving the stage to Krishnamurti himself, and allowing him to explain his own work, in person, in his own words.

Example: http://krishnamurti-for-you.com

I haven't added this to the article, because I know some Wikipedians are allergic to video and external links, and I have no desire to join that debate.

If Wikipedia pages can accept 2 lines of javascript, the entire video presentation above could be added to this article in a few minutes. I'll leave it to others to decide if that is a useful addition. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.250.139.181 (talk) 13:02, 22 March 2008 (UTC)

We don't insert video files into wikipedia articles, at least not video that would actually be displayed within the page. We can have links to video, though. See Wikipedia:Media_help. --Xyzzyplugh (talk) 09:58, 24 March 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for your reply, and the link. The first sentence of that page says: "Some Wikipedia articles include sound or video files." I encounter this confusion about video policy each time I try to contribute video to Wikipedia, so again, will leave it to other more experienced Wikipedians to sort that one out.

The best I can suggest is that editors use the link above to view the suggested content, and see if they feel it would be a useful addition to this page about Krishnamurti. The question seems to be, do you want Krishnamurti himself on this page about Krishnamurti?

If editors judge the content to not be useful, then there's no point in exploring the technical issues involved in making the presentation available. Hope that's helpful! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.250.139.181 (talk) 10:29, 24 March 2008 (UTC)

I personally would be fine with adding a link to the video in this article, it seems like it would be a useful addition to me. The easiest thing to do would simply be to post your above link as an external link in the article. It might be possible to actually upload it to Wikipedia, see Wikipedia:Creation and usage of media files. I'm not sure how simple that is, though... the difficulty may be that you might have to demonstrate that the owner of the video file had authorized Wikipedia to use it. I'm not exactly sure what our policy is on videos hosted on Wikipedia's servers. --Xyzzyplugh (talk) 10:11, 25 March 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for your interest and reply. If it's of interest, here are a few details.

First, a link from this page to the Krishnamurti video player is fine with me, but I'm not going to add that link, because it's my site. If I add the link, I'll become a hated and reviled spammer in the eyes of many Wikipedians. Been there, done that, and it's really not all that fun. So, others will add the video player link to this page, or they won't, and either is ok with me.

Now, some technical stuff. The videos are all served by YouTube. Thus, Wikipedia does not have to host any files of any type. The entire video player, with all enclosed videos, could be displayed on this Wikipedia page _IF_ a Wikipedia page can accept two lines of javascript. I don't know if this is technically possible or not.

The people who uploaded these videos to YouTube have given permission that they be displayed on remote sites by activating the embed feature, which is used specifically for this purpose.

Now it gets trickier. Do these YouTube users have the right to distribute these videos? If they don't, I assume they will be contacted by the copyright holder and the videos will be removed from YouTube, and thus the Krishnamurti player, and thus any page the player is installed on. Given the topic, my best guess is that we don't have problems here.

I hope this is helpful. I leave the matter in your hands. I'm happy to assist further if needed, but probably won't be returning here again, so feel free to contact me via one of my sites if my assistance is desired. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.250.139.181 (talk) 11:03, 25 March 2008 (UTC)

I don't believe that it's possible to add javascript to a wikipedia article. I've added a link to the article to the webpage you mentioned above. --Xyzzyplugh (talk) 19:05, 26 March 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Sydney visit

Re. the story that K was expected to walk into Sydney on water, there are certainly some who believe this was expected of him. Many years ago, on a harbour cruise in Sydney, I heard the guide tell the story about K being expected to walk on water, but a reading of ML certainly doesn't support it (speaking from memory).

Sardaka (talk) 09:35, 5 March 2008 (UTC)

[edit] On Mental State in Childhood

Regarding the state of K's mind in childhood, I think there is a problem in that the quote implies that he did not think at all: "“No thought entered his mind. He was watching and listening and nothing else. Thought with its associations never arose. There was no image-making. He often attempted to think but no thought would come.” [7]. Since he was not catatonic, this quote seems to me to refer to a mental state among other mental states. It should be balanced with more information in the interest of avoiding the appearance of the article supporting mystical claims or assertions. Sach.b (talk) 17:28, 28 April 2008 (UTC)


This statement was made by K many times throughout his life. In fact, he said if he was to write about his teachings, he would start with the vacant mind. There is no implication that he did not think. The teachings are clear about thought operating only when necessary and the mind being still otherwise. It is also addressed under the recurrent theme of Knowledge.

207.233.110.66 (talk) 22:41, 28 April 2008 (UTC)

Yes, so "not thinking" is one mental state and thinking is a different, necessary mental state. As a child, he did engage in thought, since he was neither a moron nor catatonic. Sach.b (talk) 23:53, 28 April 2008 (UTC)

When asked, K made it clear that 'not thinking' is not a state. 'It is not a state, a thing that is static, fixed, immovable. The whole universe is in it, measureless to man'. Further, morons also engage in thinking, so the comparison is not appropriate.

207.233.110.66 (talk) 23:20, 1 May 2008 (UTC)

These are all interpretations. The biographical fact remains that contemporary witnesses described the boy JK as little more than a moron. And this is what we have to go on. Not interpretations that retrofit his childhood to his later status and philosophy. As far as JK himself can be trusted to remember what his mental state was 50, 60 or 75 years later, he said that he was "not thinking" and that his brain was "vacant". Simple, unambiguous, language that he was fond of using. You may wish to attach to this your own peculiar "metaphysical" or "philosophical" explanations so that conclusions can be drawn about what it all meant, according to you. That's irrelevant, and as a POV, such interpretation has no place in the article in any form. As his biographers record, there appeared no mind there to begin with - let alone "states of mind". And this is not meant as some sort of a metaphysical/philosophical concept of "no mind" or "no thinking". —Preceding unsigned comment added by 65.88.88.126 (talk) 17:00, 28 May 2008 (UTC)
For the purposes of an encyclopedia article, any reminiscences by JK or by "contemporary witnesses" also count as a POV. In addition the so called "moron" learned to read and write in English within a period of six months to a year following his discovery by Mr. Leadbeater. This information is contained in a book by his tutor (Clark), another "contemporary witness", and also in the Vernon biography. In order to contribute to this article, you need to go directly to various source material and not rely upon a belief in the nature of the subject's "mind" or poetic liberties taken by admirers.Sach.b (talk) 16:50, 29 May 2008 (UTC)


Sorry, you are wrong on all counts. CWL certainly did not think the boy he discovered was a moron, nor did Besant. You should also read the book by Clark who was one of his boyhood tutors. Everything that I quoted above is directly from K, I have not attached any interpretations. That is how he answered a specific question put to him. I guess people would rather scream POV than do serious research themselves. 122.110.16.221 (talk) 01:40, 29 May 2008 (UTC)

Sach.b, you have to distinguish between the POV of editors of this article and the POV of sources. In case you haven't understood, it's the editors' POV that has to be avoided. Also the problem is not K's quotes, but they way they are presented by the editorial narrative as if indicative of "certain qualities" of mind he had. First, that means absolutely nothing. Secondly, there were no "certain qualities". As far as K could remember - and he frequently commented about how he had forgotten details of his early life - there was an absence of thought. That is why most observers found him "dim" and "dull", more importantly ones who did not have an interest to present a suitable backstory like the CWL/Besant circle seems to have had. We are talking about the impression of the boy at a particular time. He may have been a genious. He may have been a god. Who cares? This is not the purpose of the article's passage. It is how he appeared to others when he was in late childhood/early adolescense. Noone, including any of you, can tell for certain who he "truly was" at that time. All we can indicate is how he was perceived by others at the time, since the boy himself was hardly articulate. JK later thought he was fortunate to have been so vacant, since he considered any preconceived ideas as a hindrance. CWL thought he was fortunate JK was so vacant, because it would be easier to "shape" him. There were no "qualities of mind" there, just absence of it. The text is wrong, and a POV.
"Vacancy" is certainly a "quality of mind" in the sense that there is someone making an observation about said quality. It is a description that is differentiated from other qualities or states. K's assertion is contradicted by other contemporary accounts which say that he could disassemble and reassemble machinery, his rapidity at learning to read and write english, and also the fact that he did have childhood memories that he wrote about later and which he recalled during the "process" as was written about by his brother. I see the use of the word "vacant" as misleading as it is presented. In addition, if you read the sentence in the article to which you are referring, it is talking about more than one specific mental state or quality.Sach.b (talk) 19:24, 29 May 2008 (UTC)
And why dissemble like that about the meaning of words? This is not an article in semantics or semiotics. Further, the particular sentence makes a point: that is, that he "experienced" certain "qualities of mind". Hmmm, that sounds like a POV being surreptitiously put forth. Why not just say that he looked like a dummy (what others said) who couldn't think (what he remembered)? Note the time period in discussion here, it's between the years 5 and 10 of JK's life. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 65.88.88.126 (talk) 19:59, 29 May 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Emily Lutyens, etc.

For the "growing up" section, more emphasis on the subject's emotional growth is needed, such as the centrality of his relationship with Emily Lutyens and perhaps the Lutyens children during adolescence. The present edit skips directly from 1911 until "after world war I" without mentioning anything about the process of "growing up" which normally implies emotional or relational elements. Also, given that K was already in his 20's (27?) when the awakening incident happened in Ojai, and was 29 or so when his brother passed away, isn't he already well past adolescence at this point? Maybe the section should be titled differently or else some of the information should be under a different heading.Sach.b (talk) 17:43, 28 April 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Lawsuit "Verdict"

From the KFA pamphlet regarding the third and final lawsuit: A) It was agreed that as of the settlement date, Rajagopal owns all rights to the documents, writings and other materials in his possession or control, including but not limited to all documents in his house and all documents referred to by Rajagopal as the "Rajagopal Historical Collection"....All documents physically located in the K & R building including five boxes under question are transferred to the KFA. B) KFA paid Rajagopal parties $50,000. in partial repayment for attorney's fees. C) Rajagopal parties dismissed the third lawsuit against KFA parties. D) transfer of directorship of K&R E) Transfer of K&R to KFA, F) All claims by KFA to archives were released. G) At Rajagopal's request, a clause was inserted in the agreement to the effect that the KFA parties admit that the Rajagopal parties had done nothing wrong. H) Covenant not to sue by both parties I) Depositions from the case will go to Huntington Library (which houses the so called Rajagopal collection. J) KFA will not sue Huntington library, for documents. If Huntington Library does not want them, they go to Rajagopal's heirs. K) Five boxes of documents go to the KFA. L) KFA agrees to publish "Collected works" as initiated by K & R. Cash and securities of the KFA are to be used for this purpose. M) Return of settlement documents to respective parties..... As you can see, it is an oversimplification to state that the "verdict" was in K's favor. Sach.b (talk) 22:57, 28 April 2008 (UTC)


The lawsuits were mainly to regain control of properties and transfer control to KFA. This was achieved fully. It is not a good idea to extrapolate from a pamphlet. K insisted throughout that Rajagopal should not be affected financially and that he must be provided for. This is well documented in the biographies. Items B, F, and G must be seen in that context. Items J and L were not an issue to begin with. Except for item A, nothing in the settlement was detrimental to KFA. In contrast, you may want to refer to the biography. 'The judge in the Ventura county courthouse granted all the motions of the plaintiffs'. Following this, KWINC was dissolved and properties were returned. Overall, it is quite accurate to state that by and large the lawsuits were very much in K's favor and achieved their purpose.

207.233.110.66 (talk) 23:39, 1 May 2008 (UTC)

The pamphlet in question is about seventy pages long and was apparently published for the express purpose of giving a detailed and technical account of the lawsuit (unlike the Lutyens book). It was the archives that were a major sticking point in reaching a settlement. The five boxes which are referred to and which the KFA recovered were some older letters, diaries and accounts from K's youth. The documents that Rajagopal kept and which K tried to recover included his personal correspondence with the Rajagopals which contained some potentially embarrassing details, plus more, later material. Although this has not been placed in the article, some biographers have construed that K's and the KFA's motive in trying to retain control of the documents (now at the Huntington Library or with Mrs. Sloss) was to to prevent information about his affair from becoming public. From his side, Rajagopal was apparently attempting to harass, intimidate or blackmail K by insinuating that he was going to make the letters public and was using this as a bargaining chip throughout the litigation. Of Course later on down the road a book about the relationship was put out by the Rajagopals' daughter. So although the property and money was transferred to the KFA in the final settlement, the archives were one of the major issues that sparked the second lawsuit after KWINC had already been dissolved. The KFA did not want Rajagopal and his heirs to retain possession of those, but finally agreed to it for the sake of settling the lawsuit. I don't see any reason to whitewash the substance of the settlement as a total victory or a "verdict" (there was no verdict, since the case never went to trial) in the article when much of the behind the scenes information is now public and available Sach.b (talk) 13:10, 2 May 2008 (UTC)


Speculation cannot be a substitute for facts. In any case, it is nearly two decades since the material from Rajagopal have been available to the public at Huntington and nothing embarassing or sensational of the sort you mention have been found. A few points will become clear if one follows the 17 year history of the lawsuits (there were 3 of them). A) The deputy Attorney General of Los Angeles felt so compelled, he became a co-plaintiff in the lawsuit against Rajagopal. B) There was no out of court settlement in the earlier cases, but one of them was decided in favor of K in Ventura in 1974. C) Over in India, the Madras High court ruled in favor of K in 1976. D) The archives were NOT a major point of contention from the K side but rather from Rajagopal E) The archival material consisted of letters between K and Besant, between K and Leadbeater, between K and Jinarajadasa, and between K and Lady Emily. Likewise letters from his brother Nitya to the same parties. It was baffling to the KFA trustees how Rajagopal could claim them as his own material. F) The settlement you refer to happened in June 1986, a few months after K's death. Rajagopal was allowed to keep the material and the KFA trustees (not K who was then dead) agreed to say that Rajagopal had done nothing wrong. According to Lutyens, the trustees felt it was not a high price to pay to end the litigation. After the death of K the KFA trustees wanted to end the litigation more than anything else.

207.233.110.66 (talk) 01:11, 20 May 2008 (UTC)

A brief reply to your points: A) Yes, this is true. B) The settlement was hammered out by the respective attorneys and then approved by the judge. There was no trial. The next lawsuit was brought by the KFA because of copyright violations by R and his failure to hand over archive material. At that time it included the material that you have described (it later became the "five boxes"), but other material as well which Rajagopal never handed over but deposited at the Huntington library, calling them his personal papers. C) correct. D) This is not correct. Rajagopal withheld a large amount of material personally, and " K felt that a great deal of material was missing" - Lawsuit #2 was instigated because Rajagopal was giving archival material to the Huntington library which should have been in the K & R archives, claiming that the items belonged to him personally (from KFA pamphlet,page 49). E) In 1986, Rajagopal handed over the "five boxes" which contained the Lutyens letters, Besant letters, material from Nitya, etc., however he retained the personal correspondence between the Rajagopals and K, plus other material. At least one researcher has written a book which includes references to this material, and the book by Radha Sloss's daughter also refers to this material. To your last point, they (the KFA trustees) started the second lawsuit themselves and then withdrew it after K was subjected to a "brutal" deposition by Rajagopal's attorneys regarding his relationship with Mrs. Rajagopal. The third lawsuit was brought by Rajagopal for breach of contract and slander, among other things. Sach.b (talk) 01:30, 27 May 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Disturbing Creep of Literalism into this Article

I would like to open a discussion on the assertion by user 65.88.88.126 that JK did not have a "legacy" and the editor's subsequent removal of the term "legacy" from the article. In this instance the word legacy refers to the person's body of work that has been preserved and passed down and not to a biased psychological label. If one were to review the archives for this article, it can be seen that this type of literal and uncritical presentation of JK's work has (upon review by arbitrators) already been rejected as slanting the article to a particular POV at the expense of a more objective tone. This is an encyclopedia article and not a hagiography. Even if JK did in some context say that he had no "legacy", the content of the article is about the historical JK. Or are we to next assert that he didn't exist at all? Sach.b (talk) 16:14, 29 May 2008 (UTC)

Well if you realize that the word "legacy" can be problematic, what is the issue? Why not avoid the wording altogether? As you say, there is a chance that people may misunderstand the meaning of the term, especially the way it was presented: The foundations being the implied sole guardians of a "legacy" that may or may not mean the same thing to all. One could easily assume (the next step) that the foundations have authority in the matter of JK's philosophy. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 65.88.88.126 (talk) 20:25, 29 May 2008 (UTC)