Talk:Jiddu Krishnamurti/Archive 2

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Archive This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.

Contents

Who is Krishnamurti/Third opinion

Wikipedia is an encyclopedia, not a philosophical discussion board, essay, or any other type of work on Krishnamurti. This is a sourced, academic biography, and existential questions about "who" Kirshnamurti is are unacceptable. The very first sentence tells the readers who Krishnamurti is. The section in question is a WP:POINT violation of a neutral point of view on Krishnamurti. VanTucky (talk) 15:28, 20 August 2007 (UTC)

I agree that the section "Who or What is Krishnamurti?" is too speculative for an encyclopedia article. It seems to me that some kind of reference to K's purported 'spiritual' status, or his uncertainty as to the 'source' of the teachings can somehow be worked into the article without resorting to a long string of mystical quotes. This kind of quoting will prevent the article from ever becoming a 'good article.' D.Shura 17:49, 20 August 2007 (UTC)
Unfortunately even his official biographers who lived with him for decades were not able to address this issue (Who or what is Krishnamurti) in spite of their best efforts and it invariably resulted in misrepresentation. In any case, the quality of the article on a subject like Krishnamurti can never improve by removing his quotations. And they are a must when dealing with aspects of his own personal life, teachings, and experiences. 203.101.42.172 09:05, 21 August 2007 (UTC)
Dear Anonymous user, This article in an encyclopedia article, and therefore the "Who" question is addressed by stating the facts of his life. In my opinion, it was not only his biographers who were not able to address this issue, it was was also K himself, as evidenced by his answers. Every human being wonders 'who or what' he is and comes up with an unknown. This article should avoid overt suggestions that the subject was divine. D.Shura 12:39, 21 August 2007 (UTC)


Dear Shura, we are not here to impose our views on each other. I don't find K's answers unclear at all. In response to this question, most human beings may come up with an unknown for an answer, but more out of confusion rather than anything else. WP has articles on so many religious personalities and you will find that an element of divinity or mysticism etc is quite prevalent. Whether this applies to K is altogether a separate issue. Let his words speak for themselves.

203.101.42.172 10:47, 22 August 2007 (UTC)


Wikipedia:Third opinion

I'm responding to the "third opinion" request. It appears this material was already deleted. However, the article still contains quite a bit of material in the "influence" section that does not cite any sources. "Since his death, biographies, reminiscenses, research papers, critical examinations, and book-length studies of Krishnamurti and his philosophy have continued to appear." This line especially calls for relevant citations to be included in the text, as do the claims of influence on other thinkers or philosophies. VisitorTalk 23:20, 20 August 2007 (UTC)

I deleted the material, but since an anon IP user has reverted twice to it a discussion to reach consensus was necessary. VanTucky (talk) 23:24, 20 August 2007 (UTC)
I understand the concerns about speculation. It is precisely to avoid speculation that I reinserted a shorter version of the Who is Krishnamurti section. Krishnamurti was not a mushroom that sprouted up one day and started speaking to the world even as a teenager. He had no formal education to speak about, or any traditional 'spiritual' practice/training. In fact, all such efforts ended in failure. Yet he could expound on fundamental philosophical/religious issues. It was inevitable that many people throughout his life asked 'who is krishnamurti' and 'what is the source of the teachings'. No academic study or research can avoid this question and be considered complete. Best wishes. 203.101.42.172 04:47, 21 August 2007 (UTC)
Dear Anonymous user: There are many people who became renowned poets or writers without having obtained formal degrees. This is really not so amazing. D.Shura 12:39, 21 August 2007 (UTC)


We are not talking about a poet or a writer. I suppose so many religious leaders, the leading scientists and psychologists were wasting their time with K. If only they had known there was nothing so amazing...

203.101.42.172 06:48, 22 August 2007 (UTC)

I'm sorry 203, but there is a clear consensus against this, and you need to refrain from reintroducing it. This is synthesis original research and is a violation of a neutral point of view, and thus is inappropriate for Wikipedia. Repeatedly re-adding content against consensus and policy may result in being prevented from editing the article. when content is disputed, you need fully discuss this with other users and reach a new consensus, not make a cursory talk statement and then readd it. That's not the way this works. VanTucky (talk) 15:25, 21 August 2007 (UTC) VanTucky (talk) 15:23, 21 August 2007 (UTC)

You don't have to feel sorry, the Who is Krishnamurti section was written and has been around for many months through consensus. I was NOT the person who wrote it either. Now you and Shura (who appears to be a newcomer) suddenly want it removed. So be it. Such consensus can and will change again. My bottom line response was that it is an important question and authors are still grappling with it even decades after K's death. The article becomes poorer by removing the section.

Best wishes.

203.101.42.172 06:39, 22 August 2007 (UTC)

Empty Head of Krishnamurti

The anonymous user 203.101.42.172 has restored the quote from K about 'not a thought' came into his head during childhood:

"Writing about his childhood in his journal, Krishnamurti wrote: “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.” [14]"

I don't like the way that this quote is just inserted with no explanation. We already have the 'Wooly' quote, and that should be sufficient. In addition, K must have been waxing poetic in this passage, since it is not possible for a person to function in life without thinking. Obviously he was able to speak and recognize people as a child,and he did attend school on and off when he was not ill. K did have a younger brother who was truly retarded or mentally deficient. This child, unlike K, was kept from attending school. D.Shura 13:07, 21 August 2007 (UTC)


If you read a few chapters of K's teachings or even the Knowledge theme you will find the answer to your strong personal belief that 'it is not possible for a person to function in life without thinking'. This is why one has to be be able to understand the difference between writing a WP article on Krishnamurti and say a Barry Bonds, or Tom Cruise. Guessing that 'K must have been waxing poetic' is hardly sufficient for including or removing the text.

203.101.42.172 06:29, 22 August 2007 (UTC)

This is a misunderstanding of the teachings, plain and simple; it suggests that if he was not thinking, then he must have been inhabited or possessed by something. This kind of speculation should not be presented as 'fact' in the article. D.Shura 11:32, 22 August 2007 (UTC)
It seems you are not familiar with the teachings of K or other teachers in different traditions through the ages. In any case, you can stick to your personal belief of 'possession' theory as being the only alternative to a vacant mind.

203.101.42.172 11:50, 22 August 2007 (UTC

You have misunderstood what I said. The point is that these quotes should not be placed in the article out of context. D.Shura 12:12, 22 August 2007 (UTC)

Circumstances around 1911 move of K and Nitya to England

Quote from "Star in the East": While European interest in Theosophy began to boom, the tidal wave of Indian Enthusiasm originally sparked by Annie Besant's championing of Hindu culture in the 1890's was now on the decline...Narayaniah's concerns about his son's caste status had been encouraged by hindu fundamentalists keen to find any stick to beat the theosophical society.....Narayaniah's growing antipathy was the catalyst required to dredge up the entire Leadbeater scandal of 1906...one article in relation to the Jiddu brothers and Leadbeater was entitled "two boys and a beast... In the midst of the confusion it was thought best to remove the boys as quickly and as far from their father's orbit as possible" p. 65

This information may not be in the 'Official biographies' by Lutyens or Jayakar, but the article is not bound to be only referenced to these sources. Therefore, I am putting the sentence back into the article. D.Shura 11:11, 22 August 2007 (UTC)

Yes, you are right that the article can cite several sources. That was not the reason for my removal. Firstly, Vernon's biography is based on second hand material as he himself admits. He never met K and is not his official biographer by any means. So wherever there is a disgreement between sources, one has to go with the official biographer (ML). The other alternative is to mention the statement by qualifying it as Vernon's opinion not supported by official biographers. Regarding this particular sentence, there is clearly a plan in 1910 to send the boys to England in order to remove them from the influence of their father. This is as per the official biographer. The decision therefore is independent of whatever controversy that could have happened with the Order of the Star which was formed only in 1911. I am removing the sentence but you are welcome to insert something similar by acknowledging the inconsistencies among the sources.

Best wishes.

203.101.42.172 11:42, 22 August 2007 (UTC)

Dear Anonymous user, The sentence in question reads 'due in part.' Please give me a chance to finish citing the sentence. I am not sure that what you say regarding the official biographer is correct, as new material is often uncovered by subsequent biographers. As you know Lutyens has passed away and vernon's research was done later. Also M.L. cannot be considered to be without bias. D.Shura 12:04, 22 August 2007 (UTC)

Sydney visit

Reference to Krishnamurti's visit to Australia when he was expected to walk into Sydney Harbour by sea has been censored. I think it's noteworthy. Anyone care to explain???--Jack Upland 11:14, 28 August 2007 (UTC)

A few people within TS expected him to walk on water and it is mentioned in one of the biographies. We could write about many such 'expectations' about him during his early days. There is no end to such things and in my view they add nothing of substance to the article. This is about K, not about what every little supporter or small group expected or did not expect him to do. You can include it if it means that much to you but it has hardly been censored by anybody. Non inclusion of material in books or articles does not translate into censorship. Unless you have evidence to prove otherwise.

203.101.42.172 04:58, 6 September 2007 (UTC)

What are you talking about? I haven't seen any recent edits by you to this article that I can remember, and it's been on my watchlist for a year. You might try and assume good faith and not come crying "censorship!" before you've even discussed the issue. It could have very well been a mistake. But to the content...what passage are you speaking of, and did it have a reliable source? VanTucky (talk) 15:25, 28 August 2007 (UTC)

Well, I'm happy to be proved wrong, but it's the kind of thing his supporters would like to sweep under the carpet... I've added a para with two citations from Australian govt websites. Hope this meets with your approval.--Jack Upland 22:42, 2 September 2007 (UTC)

LowerMyBalls.com

Why does http://www.lowermyballs.com/ forward to here? What is the significance? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.143.28.201 (talk) 13:41, 26 September 2007 (UTC)

ROFL, I would like to know this too Everything Inane 09:23, 27 September 2007 (UTC)

WikiProject class rating

This article was automatically assessed because at least one WikiProject had rated the article as start, and the rating on other projects was brought up to start class. BetacommandBot 18:19, 9 November 2007 (UTC)