Talk:Jiddu Krishnamurti/Archive 1

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

→

Archive 5

Best known english name

This is the name the man was known by and published under all of his life. Arthur3030|Arthur 01:57 Mar 17, 2003 (UTC)

1929 reference

I added the 1929 reference to the "Truth is a pathless land" quote, since the original statement is easily as worth reading (IMHO) as his later 1980 paraphrasing/analysis of it (which I think is the quote here). -- Ds13 08:10, 23 April 2004 (UTC)

General Comments and Proposals

I am adding a specific reference and link to David Bohm, and a brief mention of their series of conversations in the 1980s that resulted in the publication of The Ending of Time and The Future of Humanity. The geez 05:27, 25 Jun 2004 (UTC)

Does anyone know where the audiobooks and/or DVDs of the Krishnamurtu/Bohm conversations can be found? ThePeg 16:25 14 July 2006 —The preceding unsigned comment was added by ThePeg (talk • contribs) 15:26, 14 June 2006 (UTC)

Perhaps, it would be important to make sure k is mentioned and linked in the Wikipedia, where relevant. The links on the David Bohm and the Aldous Huxley pages are good. K had a lot of conversations, which is a good factual historical basis for making a link.

The more I look at the Huxley page, the more I think it is a good model for the k page. An organization of selected works of k would be nice, separating them into say, talks, prose, poetry, conversations, journals, with brief commentary.

I think the "See Also" section is a tad redundant. Annie Besant should be mentioned in context and then linked to.

Overall, this is a good start to the page and the selection of quotes is good. The geez 05:52, 25 June 2004 (UTC)

There is a quote somewhere from Huxley where he said that after his house burnt down that the first books he bought to refill his library were that of K. Also, I beleive there is a connection with Alan Watts and K that could be researched and mentioned. I would like to see a more organized concept section, rather then just a few random quotes that have been put up. There were a number of concepts that were reoccurant in his lectures. I will try and work on this. Maybe some information should be put up about his home in California that is now a library, and the organization that now exists. These are as much notes for me as they are for you. A timeline would be nice showning major events in his life. A more complete list of people who have said they were influenced by K. I know Ken Wilber belongs on that list, and many more. Ken Wilber said that K was an early teacher who sparked his interest and got him thinking. Stevenwagner 00:34-00:37, 13 November 2005 (UTC)

Blavatsky?

Should Madame Blavatsky not also be associated with K in this entry? Curious to get feedback on this. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 64.229.230.79 (talk • contribs) 20:05, 12 August 2004 (UTC)

I say no. There is the link to information on the Theosophical Society where they can go to find that information. Part of my reason for saying no is that Leadbeater is already mentioned, and ideologically Krishnamurti had completely devorced himself at an early age from the dogma that he was groomed into. It would be misleading to imply that there is a substantial link between K and Blavatsky. Also, I just noticed she is already mentioned at another place in the article! Stevenwagner 00:02-00:37, 13 November 2005 (UTC)

Wave of Kindred Teachers?

J. Krishnamurti can be viewed as unique - but in much the same sense that each person is unique. And also in the sense that he was a distinctive teacher, writer, etc.

But I believe he can also be seen among a wave of teachers with cultural and ethnic roots in Asia who were interested in "breaking the mold" and reaching out beyond the limits of traditional identifications - at very least being involved in inter-personal dialogues in Western languages. Among others, starting their careers roughly at the same time, were Vivekananda (of India) and Soyen Shaku (of Japan). Others could be added to the list.

J.K.'spersonal limitations were explored to some degree by Radha Rajagopal Sloss (the daughter of J/K.'smistress of many years), but all men have limitations. So did the others who gained some prominence in the same years and since. But all seemed to be reasonably effective in helping other humans to go beyond the habits of hidebound religious views and ethnic diffidence.

There may be a historical aspect to all this, even if these men did not influence one another.

Chester —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 207.194.162.29 (talk • contribs) 22:46, 3 January 2005 (UTC)

Extended Pathless land quote

This is from a post at a yahoogroup I subscribe to.

this reminds me of the story of Krishnamurti: "The Order of the Star in the East was founded in 1911 to proclaim the coming of the World Teacher. Krishnamurti was made Head of the Order. On August 2, 1929, the opening day of the annual Star Camp at Ommen, Holland, Krishnamurti dissolved the Order before 3000 members."

He did this because: "I maintain that Truth is a pathless land, and you cannot approach it by any path whatsoever, by any religion, by any sect. That is my point of view, and I adhere to that absolutely and unconditionally. Truth, being limitless, unconditioned, unapproachable by any path whatsoever, cannot be organized; nor should any organization be formed to lead or to coerce people along any particular path. If you first understand that, then you will see how impossible it is to organize a belief. A belief is purely an individual matter, and you cannot and must not organize it. If you do, it becomes dead, crystallized; it becomes a creed, a sect, a religion, to be imposed on others. This is what everyone throughout the world is attempting to do. "

I'm just putting it here for now because I'm short of time (need to log off and go to work). I'll come back to it later. Haven't tried to find a source for it yet, or looked at how it might fit in this article. PaulHammond 18:12, 7 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Neutrality

The article does not mention anything about the controversies regarding Krishnamurti's life.

Sloss' book Lives in the Shadow with J. Krishnamurti is mentioned in the references, but the article itself does not mention anything about K's relationship with his secretary's wife, affair with Nandini Mehta, abortions, and other oddities not usually attributed to enlightened persons (bad expression). A. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 193.166.83.159 (talk • contribs) 17:16, 8 May 2005 (UTC)

I'm glad you've identified a potential deficiency in this article; and better yet, you seem to write clearly and directly. So kindly take the next step and be bold in editing! --Ryanaxp 16:44, May 9, 2005 (UTC)

K's affair with R.R. is no longer considered 'alleged' as stated in the article, since it has been acknowledged by Mary Lutyens, K's official biographer ans trustee of his foundation. The affair with Mehta still does fall under the banner of 'alleged' as far as I can determine. I have added some information about the 'shadow' book, but am unsure how the issue of abortion should be addressed, as there is no published account of K's views on this issue. --71.162.9.251 15:15, 7 August 2006 (UTC) --Saranorth 15:17, 7 August 2006 (UTC)

I have read Krishnamurti talks and books for over 30 years and attended two of his talks. I could give a hoot about who what he has done or has been involved in. If some drunk lying in the street said something that caused me to examine my daily life that brought about a quiet space where I really saw what was real, I would sit next to him for awhile to see if there is more I should look at. TAllen,Hawaii 09/12/3005 —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 4.248.13.214 (talk • contribs) 02:44, 15 September 2005 (UTC)

Krishnamurti addressed these critcisms on his life, and though I don't have the direct quote, he said that it is not a man that people should be following but to look and see for himself if what he is saying makes sense regardless of who the speaker is. Another quote of K that I will not forget is "If the water is clean, drink it." regarding on if his teachings should be trusted. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Stevenwagner (talk • contribs) 00:26, 13 November 2005 (UTC)

Sam: What is your source of Krishnamurti's affair with Nandini Mehta? Further, what was the nature of the affair? Please provide more details, and your sources.

While fully realizing that it is easy to crticize, I will have to mention that I have noticed contradictions in his teaching: for example, into ripe old age, his talks mention at most places that any kind of discipline is futile. However, on desire, while expounding it, he mentions, again in one of his later talks, how seeing a car, but not letting the desire of riding that car, is the highest form of discipline. So, if he touched Nandini Mehta sexually, he let the discipline lapse, and I would assume, with full alertness.

Let's give the old man some credit for teaching a lot of right things, in a world gone mad. By the way, Jiddu Krishnamurti has asserted that looking at the beauty of a flower, enjoying a sunset, or enjoying the beauty of a woman passing by, is what makes life worth living.

I am a mundane individual, with a wife and a kid. I have no desire to start affairs, yet I enjoy and adore the beauty of other women. I hope that is not a crime. And I certainly hope that on rare occassions when I touch other women, it is not construed as an affair.

I don't understand why the attack on Jiddu Krishnamurti, when a lot of lesser mortals are passing off as religious gurus / priests / reverends, both here in US, as also in India, and also everywhere else. Some are also endorsing the bombing of Iraq, etc. Krishnamurti spoke against wars, against the brutal mayhem tha man unleashes on other man, all his life.

In rare occassions, when I go crazy in this seemingly irrational world, I frequently take recourse to Krishnamurti's mutterings. Krishnamurti was a master in what he did, let us not defacate on that beautiful flower. Sam mishra 22:59, 23 December 2005 (UTC)

Not sure if this is the proper format for discussion, but here is the gist. Speaking of JK being unique, would it be appropriate to mention something about the "other" Theosophical Society protege U.G. Krishnamurti, who ended up rejecting both TS and JK. I heard that one of the huncho's at Theosophical society said "we have bet on the wrong horse", referring to the JK - UG "rivalry". UG keeps blasting JK for being a fake and for wasting his time prior to his own "calamity". UG still speaks aggressively on the topic. I just thought since UG is considered by many to be ALL THAT, pardon the pun, and his own post-enlightnment(?) life is without blemish (much like Ramana Maharshi's) it would be worth mentioning him as an authority on the topic. Then again, UG blasted every teacher that came out to teach (including Buddha, Jesus, and the company) Mindgazer 23:14, 12 January 2006 (UTC) & 17:01, 14 January 2006 (UTC)

I've been interested in K's writing's and thought's for the last 30 years and I've seen and listened to him talk 6 times in the U.S. I've also known and talked with other people who have seen him. There are many contradictions in his Life and repetitive idea's in his talks. The contradictions in his personal life vs. his teachings are really thing's that most of us that did not know him personally are going to have to live with! To put it politely, it's really none of our fucking business nor should it be. If you really heard what K had been saying all those years, is he NEVER claimed to be anything other than what he was. A man who lived a truly mindfulness and meditative life and tried to transend things that really couldn't be transended thru words. It was a paradox he was totally aware of. His early life was quite different to say the least and without question was sexually abused and emotionally manipulated for years by the likes that most of us couldn't even imagine. He got thru that ( no small feat) and went on to live a life he truly believed in. As with Life itself,we give his teachings the same attention we give everything and move on!His true message and purpose in life was to make as many people aware of the nature of true awareness and living a life of mindfulness, the rest (whatever that might be) will follow. Simple yet difficult! One interesting thing that happened to me everytime I got physically close to him and has been reported by many people was the aura and utterly unbelieveable energy that was transmitted thru this man.He truly was a unique and powerful human being. Thanks for listening...Stephen S. 1/21/06 —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 68.68.34.205 (talk • contribs) 23:56-23:59, 21 January 2006 (UTC)

This article is not about his philosophy however. It is about him. Thus, every thing about him is relevant and should be included. His affairs, his in-grown toenails, whatever. Anything of interest that is. You are free to start a new article *only* about his philosophy. Wjhonson 22:27, 29 March 2006 (UTC)

POV and Defensive Content in "Criticism" Section

The "Criticism" section was originally added because the article was a bit of a hagiography and did not look at J. Krishnamurti "in the round," so to speak.

This "rounding out" was important, because Krishnamurti always said he was concerned with life as it is lived, with the proper end of Man's life (freedom, love, compassion), with human relations; not only that, but despite K's protests about being taken as a guru, many of his followers continued to look at him as an examplar and a sort of "guru" for at least five decades. K. was an educator, and he claimed a certain achievement of clarity, balance,and wholeness was achieveable in modern circumstances. In this regard, his audiences believed he himself had achieved these things (which he very well may have,in some degree).

Someone has added a couple of paragraphs in this section reading:

"Krishnamurti had in his life occasionaly commented on the apparent contradictions and paradoxes in his life. As to his singulary unique upbringing: the followers, the hangers on, the Theosophical heirarchies, the apostles and the sense of spiritual expectation that surrounded him, he would assert that it had never left an impression on him, that it left no mark on his mind."

"Regarding his unique position, he would use a metaphor of Thomas Edison. He would argue that we do not all have to possess the genius and learning of an Edison to benefit from the lightbulb, but that our task was to simply learn how to switch the light on."

These paragraphs are defense, and thus do not belong in the section on criticism. Otherwise, the bio tends to return to hagiography. Wikipedia is committed to "neutral point of view," as befits an encyclopedia. This is a site whose articles let readers make up their own minds. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 207.194.162.172 (talk • contribs) 14:32, 8 September 2005 (UTC)

Criticisms from earlier versions of this "criticism" section have been gutted to some extent. Criticism of other philosophers, psychologists, teachers and the like in Wikipedia is usually allowed to stand, undiminished, so long as there is reason in the criticism and the expression is civil. But the situation in this article is different, as the "worshipful" have attempted to shelter the man's memory.

If Krishnamurti is great, if his insights are important, they will stand a bit of criticism. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 207.194.162.80 (talk • contribs) 23:33, 28 March 2006 (UTC)

Im a student at Brockwood Park School, one of K's schools, and as far as the first comment goes, I find it a bit arrogant. K never assumed to be "enlightened", and even so, I doubt there is a clear rulebook "enlightened" ones follow. If you take the time to look at his work, you'll see he was actually quite clear on what he was talking about. In his case it's more a case of following the spirit of the law, rather than the letter. But sure, if you feel the need to show that he too made mistakes and therefore cannot really be taken seriously as a teacher, go ahead. If your interested in him, and want to give information whilst not passing, i think, naive judgement, then that would be wiser. Felix —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 80.135.141.118 (talk • contribs) 13:06, 9 April 2006 (UTC)

Why is the neutrality of this article questioned??? Why don't people just add the omitted info?? There doesn't seem to be a serious problem here.--Jack Upland 06:16, 17 April 2006 (UTC)

I made some changes to the "Philosophical Awakening" section in the article dealing with JK's acceptance, or lack of, his role as "World Teacher". In a prior edit, a user commented that he never denied his role as "the" World Teacher, insisting upon that even on his deathbed. It seems to me that this deathbed statement should not be taken in isolation, but should be weighed against all the previous comments by JK on the subject.Mr.e-i-b 16:09-16:10, 20 December 2006 (UTC)

I see that a user has edited out my reference to JK's ambiguity when questioned on his role as "the" or "a" world teacher, pointing out, among other things, the need for citations, a point with which I would normally agree. However, this ambiguity and non-commital by JK on this subject was a common theme throughout his public life. I thought it hardly merited individual citations since the practice was so prevalent. If anything, in my opinion, citations are needed for proof of the contrary, ie that JK flatly, unambiguously proclaimed that he was or was not, a or "the" world teacher.Mr.e-i-b 19:20, 20 December 2006 (UTC)

- The article gives the following three areas of criticism:

Criticism of the manner of his delivery in speaking and his attitude during group dialogues

Criticism of certain aspects of his private life

Criticism of the content or/and substance of his "teaching" ,

But then does not sufficiently elaborate on these. The reader is only provided a link to UG Krishnamurti, a marginal and eccentric character who is not of the stature of J. Krishnamurti. M.Eiger 14:28, 16 March 2007 (UTC) -

i made these additions to the article's criticism section. they are more like placeholders for more detailed info that i hope to add soon - but if it is too much of a problem they can be removed. the article in general, after working on it for weeks, is still unsatisfactory to me. there are still several unattributed quotes, unclarified/unsourced sentences and so on. also, there are quotes and opinions remaining from the time when some "editors" were trying to push some pov or other. i'm a bit amused by the fact that people point to shortcomings now, though. i mean, the article was a disgrace before, or wasn't it? maybe the sprucing up made the remaining ommissions that much more visible. i ask for your patience, or better yet for your hopefully well-sourced, balanced, concise, non-positional input.Mr.e-i-b 15:53, 16 March 2007 (UTC)

My apologies, I read over the discussion page and had the impression that the article was to be submitted for review as a 'good article.' I had not looked at this article for a long time (over a year) but did think that it was not good in the past. I like the quote from K near the start of the criticism section. Where did you find this? M.Eiger 19:37, 16 March 2007 (UTC)

i have done very little in the "criticism" section. basically i first wanted to round out jk's life and remove the many incorrect "facts", irrelevant details and suggestive comments before tackling more contentious and subjective areas such as criticism. is the quote you mention the one dated march 1930? i've no idea where it comes from, whether this is the correct date or the correct quote. i did not add this, and whoever did, didn't feel sourcing was important, i suppose. also, it's not something i would add - loaded with theosophical terminology and implications, it's obviously from a time that jk was still carrying that baggage with him and felt compelled to respond in such language. his later language, as you probably know, was almost completely devoid of similar terminology. if there was a section (i hope there isn't one) entitled "jk's comparative use of language" this quote could have belonged there, along with the later language that he used to respond to such questions. if i cannot find the source, i will remove it. it should probably be removed anyway.Mr.e-i-b 20:07, 16 March 2007 (UTC)

In my opinion, You're right that it does not fit properly in the context of where it has been placed, and it should be removed. I think that it does have a certain clarity or mode (but not because of theosophy) that contrsts with his later style and that is what I liked about it. But it is out of context and misleading as currently placed. M.Eiger 23:47, 16 March 2007 (UTC)

i removed the defensive commentary and the unsourced quote. also the numbered points i added (in the process of gathering sources). also changed some of the wording in the beginning. thanx for the feedback.Mr.e-i-b 20:03, 17 March 2007 (UTC)

After a bit of research, I found the source for the quote in question. As expected, the language is 'traditional' but I remembered Krishnamurti's admonition "the word is not the thing". Yes, I do find it quite interesting, almost prophetic. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 203.101.42.172 (talk • contribs) 11:55, 29 March 2007 (UTC)

Understanding Krishnamurti's ideas and teachings

It would seem to me that criticism of Krishnamurti's personal life in relation to his teachings is somewhat missing the point. His body of work relates to ending conflict through 'self-awareness.' The fact that in his personal life he, like anyone else, was continually discovering reality and his relationship to it has little bearing on the value of ideas he propounded from which others could aquire self-knowledge for themselves.

The suggestion seems to be that if Krishnamurti failed in his personal life due to lack of self-knowledge, then his ideas are seen to have failed and be of little value to anyone else in attaining self-knowledge. The thinking behind this seems to be that if the 'guru' couldn't do it, then neither can anyone else. One cannot learn about oneself from another, which Krishnamurti made clear.

Life, and our relationship to it and to ideas are a continuous, dynamic process - as is the accumulation of self-knowledge. To critcise Krishnamurti's ideas for his living and learning process seems to me a complete failure to comprehend the ideas that he propounded. Peter Fainton 26.11.05. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 86.140.242.176 (talk • contribs) 14:36, 26 November 2005 (UTC)

Nevertheless, what is with this language? "Notwithstanding his insights and the clarity with which he usually expressed them, Krishnamurti has been criticized"

That, as just one example, is definately not per NPOV policy. Regardless of anyone's respective views, this is an ecyclopædia and the wording could at the very least be more subtle. Also, out of curiousity, can anyone put his name in Telugu? I don't think जिद्दू कृष्णमूिर्त is appropriate here and I'm not even sure on that spelling anyway! Did link up Madanapalle. Khirad^talk 09:38, 26 December 2005 (UTC)

I have put Jiddu Krishnamurti's name in his mother tongue, Telugu. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 24.6.53.14 (talk • contribs) 08:28, 17 January 2006 (UTC)

But the article is not about "the value of his ideas", its about all of him, his ups and downs, his goods and bads. Peter you could start a new page just on his philosophy and link it to this one, but you'd still have to allow that there would be criticism. Wjhonson 10:13, 11 February 2006 (UTC)

Journal and notebook: which is which?

The articles linked from the booklist about Krishnamurti's Journal and Krishnamurti's Notebook contained no publication data when I ran across them. The ISBN listed in the booklist's description of the Notebook was actually for the Journal. I fixed this, and placed the proper publication data into the linked articles for Journal and Notebook, but a problem remains. Since I don't have access to either book, I cannot determine whether the present content description of them is correct. Thanks in advance if you can verify the descriptions. --Blainster 22:30-22:33, 6 March 2006 (UTC) & 02:07, 7 March 2006 (UTC)

First of all let me thank you for your additions and for cleaning up the article. The content description of these two book is correct. (I haven't read these two books completely, so my opinion is based upon Mary Lutyen's biography, which has a whole chapter about Krishnamurti's Notebook.) --Mallarme 12:16, 7 March 2006 (UTC)

The Last Talks

The article contains several quotations from a book titled The Last Talks. Although the booklist does not contain a book with this exact title, there are two possible candidates: Last Talks at Saanen, 1985, and The Future Is Now: Last Talks in India. We need an editor to determine which citation is the right one, and correct the text. --Blainster 02:07, 7 March 2006 (UTC)

The first quotation was from "The Future Is Now: Last Talks in India". I cannot find the second "last talks" quotation of section [1]. --Mallarme 12:27, 7 March 2006 (UTC)

Links to non-English language sites

I removed a link to a Portuguese (language) site for K. ebooks, because it is not useful to those who are unilingual. There are two acceptable options in my opinion. The best would be to provide a link here to the appropriate Portuguese Wiki about Krishnamurti, and place the K. ebook link there. In addition, if the Krishnamurti ebooks themselves are available in English, then there should be an English language site we could find to link to. The appropriate WP Manual of Style guidline about foreign language links is here. --Blainster 16:16, 7 March 2006 (UTC)

Krishnamurti's education books

I have completed my additions to the booklist for now, primarily adding pub. data for books already listed, and adding a list of his Collected Works. The books are now ordered by date of first publication, with added ISBNs for current editions. It appears that The First and Last Freedom may not have been K.'s first or second book. The 1953 date of Education and the Significance of Life is the copyright date appearing in the 1981 edition. The 1912 Project Gutenberg text of Education as Service is another early publication. Is it possible that Education as Service is reprinted as Education and the Significance of Life or Krishnamurti on Education? --Blainster 18:36, 7 March 2006 (UTC)

According to Mary Lutyens Krishnamurti: The Years of Fulfilment The First and Last Freedom is K's second book and Education and the Significance of Life is his first book:

"1953 saw the publication of K's first book brought out by a commercial publisher, Harper & Row in America and Gollancz in England... Called Education and the Significance of Life.... (p 81)

"In May 1954 K's second book was published by Gollancz (it had appeared earlier that year in America) - The First and Last Freedom..." (p 86)

Of course some would consider At the Feet of the Master to be his first book, which is a debatable point. --Mallarme 22:05, 7 March 2006 (UTC)

OK, but what about the 1912 text Education as Service? It's introduction is by Annie Besant. According to the title page it was published in 1912 (two years after At the Feet of the Master) by Rajput Press in Chicago. Here is K's description: I will take the four Qualifications which have been given in At the Feet of the Master, and will try to show how they can be applied to the life of the teacher and of the students, and to the relations which should exist between them. (After looking at the other two "Education" texts I can see it is different from them.) --Blainster 05:03, 8 March 2006 (UTC)

I finally found a reference about "Education as Service" in Krishnamurti: The Years of Awakening on page 63. It says that Lady Emily stated that this book was "obviously the work of George Arundale". But Mary Lutyens thinks: "In view of Krishna's letter saying he had written it, Lady Emily seems to have overstated George's part in its composition. No doubt George helped him and did some editing, and Krishna's style would almost certainly have been influenced by George...." Education as Service (TPH, London, October 1912).

This seems to be a case similar to At the Feet of the Master, although less debatable. --Mallarme 14:15, 8 March 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for clarifying this. --Blainster 15:30, 8 March 2006 (UTC)

Actually, many Krishnamurti books were published before Education and the Significance of Life or The First and Last Freedom. To be fair, Mary Lutyens merely claims that Education and the Significance of Life was his first book "brought out by a commercial publisher", but she is also incorrect about that.

The Immortal Friend was published in 1928 by Boni and Liveright. It lists the following other books by Krishnamurti: At the Feet of the Master, By What Authority, The Kingdom of Happiness, The Path, The Pool of Wisdom, Self-Preparation, The Search, Temple Talks, and Who Brings the Truth. This list is probably not complete, as it doesn't list Life in Freedom, also published in 1928. (Of course, that could have been published later in 1928 than The Immortal Friend.) The Immortal Friend is a collection of Krishnamurti's poetry, so it could have been omitted for that reason, but the titles suggest that some of these other books are not poetry.

I'm not otherwise familiar with Boni and Liveright, but The Immortal Friend is a hardcover which by outward appearances is a "commercial" book. A quick Google search yields tens of thousands of references to Boni and Liveright, including this one: "by 1925 Hemingway was published by a major US publisher, Boni and Liveright": http://www.litencyc.com/php/speople.php?rec=true&UID=2077 so clearly Boni and Liveright was a "commercial" publisher.

There are also the numerous items in the Authentic Reports series, which started in 1933. These were paperbound, often thin, sometimes perfect bound rather than squarebound, so they're more "booklets" than "books". They were published by The Star Publishing Trust, or Krishnamurti Writings Inc., so they were not "commercially" published. (The 17 volume Collected Works is basically a corrected reprint of the Authentic Reports.)

Perhaps Mary Lutyens meant to say that Education and the Significance of Life was Krishnamurti's first book published by a commercial publisher after the dissolution of the Order of the Star. --Wayne Vucenic 17:27, 14 April 2006 (UTC) and 17:05, 15 April 2006 (UTC)

"Defense of Krishnamurti"

Krishnamurti had in his life occasionaly commented on the apparent contradictions and paradoxes in his life. As to his singulary unique upbringing: the followers, the hangers on, the Theosophical heirarchies, the apostles and the sense of spiritual expectation that surrounded him, he would assert that it had never left an impression on him, that it left no mark on his mind.

This section has been removed from the article for two reasons: It carries no source citation, and it was entered as a separate section in debate style. It could be added back in an appropriate place if properly referenced. --Blainster 15:28, 8 March 2006 (UTC)

what's important

i'm not sure i understand the discussion about the personal details of his life being relevant. you say the page is about him and everything about him, ups and downs and technically you're right. but when you're being technical you make a division between what's really important and what's important in this isolated little web encyclopedia world, exactly the sort of separatist attitude that got us into trouble in the first place. what's important about krishnamurti is his ideas. it's easy to say, well if he's the master and he can't perfect his own methods then where's the proof, but krishnamurti always made it clear that we were all in this together, and you can't be a perfect ten buddha in a society of minus threes. we all have to evolve together. that krishnamurti could see this from six feet under is part of his greatness. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Nir.slsk (talk • contribs) 07:44-07:53, 20 March 2006 (UTC)

That sounds like your opinion to me. What's important to me about Krishna is who influenced him and who he influenced. His ideas to me are secondary. I'm far more interested in his personal life. Any biography of a person, does not tend to expound only their ideas, but rather all of them. This is a biography, it's not a thesis on how wonderful his mind was. Wjhonson 22:32, 29 March 2006 (UTC)

External link

Hi, I would like to add an external link to the World of Biography entry J.Krishnamurti Biography probably the most famous portal of biography to this article. Does anybody have any objections? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 59.144.97.157 (talk • contribs) 08:50, 15 April 2006 (UTC)

Link to U.G. Krishnamurti removed

I hope no one objects to my removing the link to U.G. Krishnamurti's Wikipedia entry under "See Also". There are only three other links there: Bohm, Huxley and Besant, so a link to U.G. Krishnamurti is quite random. My view is that despite that they met, the main reason the two men are associated is their shared surname, which sounds unscientific, but Krishnamurti met U.G. no more often than others who's names do not appear in the section. Krishnamurti met very many people in his lifetime who went on to become writers, philosophers, teachers etc. Their disagreement may have been somewhat formative of U.G.'s view of the world, but really it is only relevant within that context and had very little to do with the life of J. Krishnamurti. Comparing them might be interesting but we can compare anyone's ideas with anyone else's. There remains a link to U.G.'s entry under "Criticism of Krishnamurti" (where I notice the use of the word "indulgence" is somewhat misplaced). —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 84.69.21.243 (talk • contribs) 20:26, 16 April 2006 (UTC) and 00:28, 17 April 2006 (UTC)

The interesting thing about the two Krishnamurtis is its like they were brought together to fight. Me, I'm with Jiddu - but its always fascinating when every action generates its own equal reaction. ThePeg 14.6.06 —The preceding unsigned comment was added by ThePeg (talk • contribs) 14:45, 14 June 2006 (UTC)

this ug/jiddu juxtaposition is an interesting one. like jiddu, ug was one of leadbeater's wards, groomed for a while to take jk's place, after the-jiddu-as-maitreya "coming" had "gone wrong". ug ofcourse also abandoned organized thought, theosophy, and also jiddu. that last break with jk is more or less an understandable development. in a way, ug extends jk's "teaching" to near what seems like a logical conclusion so for ug to have "stayed" philosophically with jk would have meant stagnation.

it's funny: jk wanted "the teaching" to be exactly recorded and saved to posterity so there would be no second-guessing. ug parctically invites people to distort his "teaching", so there can be no second-guessing.Mr.e-i-b 19:20, 7 March 2007 (UTC)

Article improvement

There is lots of information here, but none of it is referenced to sources. Let's try to improve the article by adding citations to the text, and referencing them in a "notes" section. This is particularly needed in the criticism section, which reads like editor's personal animosity without references to published work. --Blainster 01:54, 10 May 2006 (UTC)

As a starter, what is the source of The Core of the Teachings? The article says it was written in 1980 (prior to K's death) yet the "Core" refers to him in the third person. So who is the author? --Blainster 19:55, 23 May 2006 (UTC)

As I recall, when Mary Lutyens was working on her biography of Krishnamurti, she wrote a short statement called "The Core of the Teachings" and asked him to review it. As she had hoped, he instead re-wrote it. I have a very small pamphlet (actually just one folded piece of paper) published by the Krishnamurti Foundation of America titled "The Core of Krishnamurti's Teaching" which says at the end, "This statement was originally written by Krishnamurti himself on October 21, 1980 for 'Krishnamurti: The Years of Fulfilment' by Mary Lutyens, the second volume of his biography, published by Farrar, Straus & Giroux in 1983. (c) Mary Lutyens. On re-reading it Krishnamurti added a few sentences."

It's in the third person because he often referred to himself in the third person. --Wayne Vucenic 06:37, 27 June 2006 (UTC)

Krishnamurti's youth and his relations with H.P. Blavatsky's movement

I think that [a] few words about the controversies related to the "discovery" of Krishnamurti by Leadbeater should be appropriate in this Wikipedia article. Leadbeater has been suited in court for his pedophilic tendencies, and for having very special conceptions on the sexual education of young boys. All of this is well known now, and fully documented. It sheds new light on the "discovery" of Krishnamurti by Leadbeater on a beach in South India. Also, it would be quite informative to get accounts on what happened to Krishnamurti when he was "invited" in California for the first time, and all the strange events that appeared there at the same time. Also, Krishnamurti had an open break with the Theosophical Society. TwoHorned 11:30-11:37, 22 June 2006 (UTC)

Are you saying you'd like *more* words? Or *less* words? I'm not sure I'm understanding what you're asking for. Wjhonson 15:17, 22 June 2006 (UTC)

I meant more words: the article is too elusive about that. No ? TwoHorned 19:18, 23 June 2006 (UTC)

Did you mean to say "a few words about ..."? That has quite a different implications than "few words about ...".—Nat Krause^(Talk!) 21:35, 23 June 2006 (UTC)

Yes, I meant to say "a few words about ..." TwoHorned 19:52, 24 June 2006 (UTC)

I'm re-reading the first three chapters of Mary Lutyens "The years of awakening" so I'll add a few quotes etc with citations. Wjhonson 21:20, 27 June 2006 (UTC)

The following reference: "Theosophy, history of a pseudo-religion" by Rene Guenon is another acknowledged serious reference, and it is recognized as one of the best on these subjects. It has a special chapter on Krishnamurti and contains the detailed references and citations on Leadbeater's behaviour. TwoHorned 10:54-10:56, 3 July 2006 (UTC)

Is there a description of Leadbeater's discovery of K in the article , I think It is remarkable if you consider it ,was K "made" or "found' , a genius walking on a beach ( from memory ) by leadbeater ( this has often puzzled me ) men of extrodinary intellect and insight are very rare ( at least I think ) has something of a great novel about it perhaps --Scribe5 23:38, 3 July 2006 (UTC)

Middle life

I'd like to see someone expand on his biography from the years 1930 to 1980. That section is just addressed by a few sentences. It would be nice to see something more detailed like we have for the early years. Wjhonson 23:03, 16 September 2006 (UTC)

'Theosophy' Category Box deleted

We would like to keep deleted the category box - 'Theosophy' with the occult pictogram. There is the well-known early connection to the Theosophical Society but Krishnamurti was not a Theosophist and did not practice or expound Theosophy.

Krishnamurti talking to a friend in 1972:

K: ... there is the whole Theosophical thing, and they are becoming most verbal for various reasons, and they want to use this teaching and say, "This is Theosophy, this is partly true, truth has different facets" which is all such abomination. Truth hasn't got different facets; truth is truth. "We are all working together." That's all silly nonsense. And they are going to do all this. The more the other becomes real, the more they will exploit this. ... First of all, I never belonged to Theosophy. Never been a Theosophist. I grew up in it. Grew up in it to be exact from 1909 or 10 till 1913 or 1914. Five years, or less than that even. After that, they [he and his brother] were taken to Europe; and let loose. And there was the Order of the Star in the East, of which he was the head and didn't know what it was all about. He was there. He didn't fight it, he didn't say "Oh my God what am I doing with this?" or "why am I put in this position, how terrible what shall I do?" None of those questions arose. There was no battle in myself whether I should be or not be. And when Dr Besant died, they pushed me out. And that was the end of that. And people said, "Come back. After all we brought you up. You are ungrateful." But I said, look, Dr. Besant never said I was ungrateful; you are saying it. She brought me up, not you." She never said to me, "you are an ungrateful man," because she wouldn't. So you see what is difficult in this: the Theosophists, the present-day Theosophists - even Leadbeater and the rest of that group - for them the structure was very real, real in the sense that they believed in it. To them that was so. When I began talking, Dr Besant said, "If you want me to I will leave Theosophy, I'll resign. I would follow you all over the world, but I can't now I'm getting old." So she had already a breakaway. This is not my invention. This is...

Q: Her senility prevented her action, perhaps?

K: And all the rest of it. So you have this problem of a group of people throughout the world, a minor, very small group, saying, "You are part of us, we brought you up, you belong to us, you are saying the truth which we also accept." And he says, "No. Sorry. We parted company long ago." When Wedgewood came to Eerde and said, "But we can all work together can't we? We can all be together in this work." I said, "No, sir, you are going North, we are going South or East; the two can't meet." But they want us to meet, because many of them feel what is being said is true. And they can't let their position, all that let go and say for God's sake, drop all this. They can't so they have to justify their position. Therefore, they say we are both the same. And the man is saying we're not.

Q: But I feel... that as long as there is this danger at your death of the Theosophists putting you back in their pockets, distorting, and making you into a provincial...

K: But, sir, there it is. What can you do? We have done it. I have said it. In the old days I said, "Look. Truth is not yours or mine. Because you are Theosophists it doesn't mean you own truth etc. It has no country, no race, it has no people, it has no belief, no dogma, it doesn't etc. etc." I have repeated this ad nauseam. But the difficulty is - I see the difficulty - because their fountain is dead, dried up, and somebody's water is flowing freely. Please let me have a cup, only they want it in their terms. That's all.

It must be clearly understood that there is not any kind of antagonism, or anger or disappointment or bitterness about those who were then working with Dr. Besant - or at least supposed to be working with Dr. Besant - like Leadbeater, Jinarajadasa, Arundale and so on. I really had no contact with them after Dr. Besant's death in 1933, or even before that. I met them occasionally but there was never any serious conversation or a rapprochement, or physical or intellectual communication with them. So when I refer to these people it is not out of any sense of antagonism. I have only related facts as they were, not invented by me or thought up, or imagined, but merely stating things as they actually were. I think that's enough, isn't it? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 81.151.11.209 (talk • contribs) 16:32, 13 October 2006 (UTC) and 11:46, 14 October 2006 (UTC)

That is not correct. Krishnamurti was the leader of Theosophy until he was about 30. He was a Thesophist like his father, almost from his birth. What he said in 1972 is not relevant. What he said in 1930 is. Wjhonson 05:34, 14 October 2006 (UTC)

Krishnamurti was 14 when Leadbeater saw him, and really too blank at that age to be described as intelligent, let alone as a Theosophist - he was being hit regularly by the school teacher for not being able to learn anything. So was he a Theosophist as a child? He didn't know anything about it. His father was originally a paid-up member of the Society, who later took them to court for kidnapping his sons. Though I don't see the relevance of his father in this.

How can a school of thought have a particular leadership? Do you mean Krishnamurti was the leader of the Theosophical Society - the organisation? He was placed at the head of a particular order within it.

Also, what is the thing he said in 1930 that you mention? The Wiki article quotes him in 1929 when he pointed out that truth doesn't belong to anyone. He didn't appear to change his mind. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 81.151.11.209 (talk • contribs) 11:46, 14 October 2006 (UTC)

You should really read the early things he wrote before he disbanded the Order. It doesn't seem like you have. He was head and feet into Theosophy. It wasn't something imposed on an impressionable child, he was quite grown-up and still leading the group. He was thirty-four in 1929, not a child.Wjhonson 16:22-16:23, 14 October 2006 (UTC)

We should be a little careful with the stuff published by the Star Publishing Trust, though most of it is probably fairly close to what was originally said. He eventually found his own language, but in the early days it did have the same romantic flavour of that mystical kind of poetry, because he was carried away by something fundamentally indescribable. He was in the process of finding things out for himself, which can take time. The language he used was an interpretation, a representation. He was in fact dictating what Theosophists were themselves trying to repeat. That is, he was actually creating new tenets for the Society HIMSELF, but there was a big contradiction inherent in the idea of his leadership.

As he matured, the language became less flowery and more direct. He pointed out that people don't need organisations in order to discover truth, but people like to affiliate to organisations. Which to me is quite clear, unless we are to be slaves to a particular approach, a particular pattern, a particular organisation - inwardly as well as outwardly. This highlights the irony in Krishnamurti's relationship to the Theosophical Society - he was there to find and present 'truth' to them, and in doing so realised the truth of their need for authority and ideas. The feel-good factor of 'knowing truth' and worshipping an enlightened being.

Theosophy apparently concerns itsef with truth, but when the truth is seen it has a particular vitality, that's one thing, but when it is attached to an organisation - it becomes a dead thing, a lot of words, and then people start repeating it and it all becomes a bit ego-centric, and the essence of the thing, the life of it, is forgotten. It has become something else - its interpretation or its representation. Truth is itself not its ideation. Ideation is all the paraphanalia, the organisation, the symbols, etc. In trying to find truth for his devotees, the young Krishnamurti saw what it was NOT. And then he saw that they were putting all this stock in ideas, and this is the irony which Theosophists who site Krishnamurti still don't understand. He pointed out that their organisation was irrelevent to the truth it was seeking, that it was basically a game, and pointed to the actual reality of people's lives. He stood down and directly addressed the way people live.

Theosophy websites around the world don't mention Krishnamurti. He left them behind, fully. Theosophy's mysticism is comparatively naive, playing with grand ideas in avoidance of the actual fact of its lack of enlightenment. K drew attention to the greater picture of people's confusion, isolation, sorrow, fear. You see, Theosophy has no genuine humility, it talks about the brotherhood of man but AS AN ORGANISATION it has no compassion, it is about itself. Naturally. Theosophy and Krishnamurti's teaching are really not similar, even when he was talking in colourful terms. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 88.109.217.60 (talk • contribs) 03:33, 4 November 2006 (UTC)

it should also be mentioned that the whole "krishnamurti business" caused tremendous upheaval within the theosophical society, with widespread defections of those who mistrusted the besant/leadbeater circle and their new-found "messiah" - the most well-known splintering being steiner's in germany. in fact, it could be said that the society never really recovered after this. after the dissolution of the order of the star, as far as jk was concerned, the point was moot. he had moved on. to suggest, as a user has, that what he said in 1972 is not relevant and what he said 40+ years prior is, well, that's not serious. and ofcourse, he was not "a leader of the theosophical society". on the contrary, apparently there were powerful members who thought this whole exercise of jk as the World Teacher was a total misadventure.Mr.e-i-b 16:40, 28 February 2007 (UTC)

The reason it has stayed is bc its efficient for Wikipedia categorisation. Krishnamurti is related to Theosophy, and was part of its history, therefore it stays. its not try and associate him more with the society or anything insidious. VanTucky 16:43, 28 February 2007 (UTC)

External links

I have restored this link Krishnamurti on the Mystical Site www.mysticism.nl because the comment was "not objective." I do not believe that is a sufficient comment for removing an el. Wjhonson 15:56, 13 November 2006 (UTC)

Another user has now decided that this link One admirer's tribute site should also be removed because it is a personal homepage. But this reason is not valid according to Wikipedia:External links. The website has many pages, and seems to be informative and useful. --Mallarme 15:30, 15 November 2006 (UTC)

can we put this link strippingthegurus there, too? Any objections? Austerlitz 88.72.21.120 10:50, 2 December 2006 (UTC)

i do not object to the listing of the link indicated above, but imo the author did a very sloppy job. most of the damning quotes come from a single source (ms sloss's book) which is already covered in the article. some of the info is hearsay: "as so-and-so reports, jk did talk to this person on that subject". or they really have nothing to do with j. krishnamurti himself, but rather with the way he was interpreted or viewed by others. and there will be a million views of krishnamurti. i suggest we stick to verifiable facts of what/when jk has said and done, and expressly treat everything else as theories and opinions.

as the title of the website (strippingthegurus.com) suggests, it already has an agenda that naturally has to be "proven" in its content. Mr.e-i-b 17:06-21:11, 10 December 2006 (UTC)

Conflict of Interest

As an avid reader of Krishnamurti's talks, I have to say that the first thing that comes to mind reading this article is that the section dealing with his "philosophies" is rather bizarre. Whoever has complied this section has taken quotations of his and vastly oversimiplified his ideas. As a devoted Wikipedian, I understand the need to make his major concepts clear to beginners, but this is just wrong. The only respectful and objective explanation would be A: direct quotes and B: an explanation of the fact that his ideas are only fully understood through reading/listening to them in the original, and that an "academic philosophy" style summation of his concepts is contrary to the philosohy itself. To quote the man, "When Krishnamurti dies you will...invent phrases, dogmas, systems of belief, creeds, and to create philosophies." I move that this summary of his concepts be removed as totally insufficient. You cannot take his quotes out of context ever. They are a dialectic for understanding human experience, not a canon of individual concepts. VanTucky 05:37-05:41, 12 December 2006 (UTC)

i very much agree with the observations contained in the last two sentences above. i'm a bit at a loss about the offending section, though. which section of the article is user vantucky refering to? Mr.e-i-b 15:31, 12 December 2006 (UTC)

sorry, should have clarified that. I mean the "Other Themes" section. Besides that it reads like a list, the section above it only contains one concept, as if that was the only major thought of JK. VanTucky 21:40, 12 December 2006 (UTC)

agreed. i too, think that this summary doesn't do jk justice and should be removed. on the other hand, the various krishnamurti foundations are also responsible: they keep putting out these "themed" compilations of his sayings that basically amount to redactions. Mr.e-i-b 15:09, 13 December 2006 (UTC)

yes, very true about the recent publications. I havent heard any complaints, so I'll write a statement detailing why a list of summarised ideas is inadequate to replace it. VanTucky 17:30, 13 December 2006 (UTC)

Krishnamurti as The World Teacher

There has been considerable back and forth under the "Philosophical Awakenings" section of the article about whether JK viewed himself, or cared about being viewed as the "World Teacher". A user has added some quotes from K to the effect that he did not deny it - with misplaced emphasis to prove his/her point (I edited the emphasis out).

Well, he also never publicly accepted being the World Teacher (don't forget - that's a Theosophical/religious concept), but he very often did something far more important, imo: for all effects and purposes, he publicly, at least, completely ignored, bypassed, and/or refused to be drawn into discussions about, the old theosophical/religious idea that he was a teacher of any sort. If that doesn't make the whole issue a non-event, I don't know what does. In our understanding of JK and his "philosophy" this "world teacher" issue is a historical footnote, nothing more. After all, JK himself said so over and over.

And when it comes to it, I'll take JK's public, unadultared word for it rather than the "explanations" and commentary offered years after he died. I don't care who the "explainer" is, or purports to be. I have the original source available, and I can read/see/hear for myself. Thank you. Mr.e-i-b 18:14-18:17, 17 January 2007 (UTC)

There are a few reasons for clarifying the World Teacher phenomenon.

1. It is perhaps the most common misconception about his life that he somehow denied being the W.T. His statements both in private and public throughout his life never deny it, to put it most gently.

2. For the sake of posterity, this web site needs to be absolutely factual. Otherwise it will suffer from loss of credibility.

3. Whether the W.T. idea is 'important' or not should be left to the readers to decide. Just like any other section about him.

4. We should remember that most if not all of the material in the books are supported by K's own writings and/or taped conversations. These are not third party explanations after his death! In fact, such explanations are those that very glibly say he denied being the W.T. They have no basis in fact. Best wishes. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 203.101.42.172 (talk • contribs) 04:58, 18 January 2007 (UTC)

first, i did not add this section to prove or disprove that jk denied being the world teacher. read more closely. and provide us with statements by jk where he flatly said that he was or was not, the world teacher, or a world teacher. please provide direct quotes, not extrapolations or interpretations that "support" what you think he said. in many instances jk has denied being even just a teacher of any sort. also in several places, jk has said that whether he is/isn't the world teacher is not important. whether readers decide that jk's view on this is wrong is entirely irrelevant Mr.e-i-b 17:10-17:24, 26 February 2007 (UTC)

All the statements I have provided are directly from K. If anything, the burden of proof is on those who claim the contrary based on their personal 'understanding' of what he said about the W.T phenomenon. I have only provided a handful of K quotes, not all. They cover a time frame of over 50 years until his death, so they are remarkably consistent. You can also do your own research and satisfy yourself. There is plenty of original material you can get from the concerned foundations. If you read what I posted in the article it is clear that K refused to refer to the teachings as 'my teachings'. There is no importance attached to the personality. There is no disagreement on that issue. It is only factually incorrect to say that he ever, even once, denied being the W.T. Best wishes. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 203.101.42.172 (talk • contribs) 07:56, 27 February 2007 (UTC)

you keep saying that he didn't deny being the world teacher, and i never disagreed. i am just saying that he also never accepted being the world teacher. so you insist in seeing only half the picture. further, in dozens upon dozens of public talks jk denied being anybody's teacher, let alone being a, or the, world teacher. whether others, starting with the theosophists, believe he was, or could have been, or eventually turned out to be, is a different matter, and just an opinion. this whole argument is not important in anyway except for the fact that the "world teacher" aspect carries theosophical connotations. this may lead somebody who knows nothing about jk to conclude that he somehow never left theosophy (and by extension, organized belief, or just belief) behind, all his statements and behavior throughout the years notwithstanding.Mr.e-i-b 15:44, 27 February 2007 (UTC)

That version of the addition is fine. I'm not trying to keep JK's own words out of the article, I just felt that someone had manipulated them out of conext to say what JK did not. And besides, like you pointed out and I did earlier, he said what he said in public to those reading and listening to him. and that cant be denied. so I'm glad we could put those quotes in proper perspective. My larger concern was with the first sentence of the intro. It said he was a "religous teacher". What nonsense. As if he was a priest or a guru. VanTucky 16:55-16:59, 27 February 2007 (UTC)

RM of Theosophist hogwash

I removed the quotations from well-known Theosophist Mary Lutyens bc of obvious conflicts of interest in her own credibility in saying JK never renounced the role of World Teacher privately. Especially since later on in the same section it gives the account of his very public and financial rejection of it. The section was a little itty bitty complete contradiction of itself. VanTucky 09:27, 26 February 2007 (UTC)

Your removal follows your own point-of-view however. Your replacement is not cited, and appears to be essentially your own opinion. So I've restored what Lutyens said. Wjhonson 19:34, 26 February 2007 (UTC)

If you look at previous talk subjects, you'll realize that the included quotations have been manipulated and taken out of Lutyen's context. I disagree with some things she has said subjectively about JK, but she never stated that he privately contradicted his very public renunciation of the WOlrd Teacher. Just about ever book and recorded leture includes a statement that quite literally renounces any claim to messiahhood or even the standing of a mundane religous guru. What we do know absolutely is that JK publically renounced his specific role as the Theosophists puppet. For you to include the mishandled quotes is in direct conlfict with the accepted academic majority view and plainly obvious fact of his renunciation of ties to the Theosophical Society and its plans for him. VanTucky 22:27, 26 February 2007 (UTC)

It appears you have reservations about Lutyens, so I would encourage you to add quotations that refute these instead of removing them entirely. The general way to handle this point-counterpoint would be in sections titled Criticisms and seperate a section titled Responses. You can look at the article for Mary Baker Eddy to see an example of how we've done this. Each quotation or remark should be cited to some authority however for contentious statements like these. If the section becomes too large it could be forked into a new article as well. That would be the best approach to not have a long edit war dragging on. Wjhonson 07:12, 27 February 2007 (UTC)

It is amazing to see the extent of misunderstanding on this site. Here are some basic facts, at least for those with some yearning for the facts.

1. Mary Lutyens has never claimed to be a Theosophist.

2. Her mother, Lady Emily, was a Theosophist. However, she also parted ways and resigned from the Theosophical Society in 1936.

3. Mary Lutyens wrote her first biography on Krishnamurti in 1975, 40 years after her mother resigned from the Theosophical Society.

So accusing Mary Lutyens of conflict of interest with Theospohy is nonsensical.

Turning to Krishnamurti,

1. He never denied being the World Teacher, not in his speech in 1929, or anywhere else until his death. Unfortunately, people tend to throw the baby with the bathtub and equate the dissolution of the Order of the Star somehow with a denial of being the W.T. Which is all the more important that this site keeps to the strict facts.

2. The quotes provided are not 'private', meant just for Mary Lutyens. In fact, Krishnamurti has insisted that many statements be taped so that there is no scope for distortion. This he did, even a few days before his death. Hence, it is by no means accurate to suggest that Lutyens was a well known Theosophist or that she could somehow fudge the facts about Krishnamurti. In any case, K lived until 1986, more than a decade after the book was published. Had Lutyens indulged in any such activities, K had enough time to disassociate himself from the contents in the book.

3. On Feb 5, 1986, Krishnamurti said 'As long as this body is living, I am STILL the teacher.' Self explanatory. Yes, this is also taped.

Perhaps the general difficulty in comprehending K comes from the fact that he used common words such as meditation, education, teacher, guru etc but often in an entirely different sense. Best wishes to all. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 203.101.42.172 (talk • contribs) 12:52, 27 February 2007 (UTC)

well what are the "strict facts"? did he deny being the w.t.? not specifically, but he repeatedly denied being anybody's guru, teacher, or helper. in fact, if we are to believe the rendering of his private discussions with mary lutyens and others, he was unsure what exactly he was and thought it interesting that they should find out. did he specifically accept being the world teacher? no. did he consider the debate on his being the world teacher important? no, not really. did he occasionally, and in private, make contradicting statements about being a teacher? yes. so which way does the evidence point to? does it really matter? only if you're hung up on the world teacher/messiah aspect. may i also suggest that if you are going to add emphasis to a quote as you did above, by capitalizing the word "still", that you let us know that this is your own emphasis added. unless you know the emphasis to be justified; in such case you can point to the location of a sound file or other way to access the recording you're refering to.Mr.e-i-b 16:58, 27 February 2007 (UTC)

The strict fact is that he never denied being the W.T. Not once, not ever. For many people who try to extrapolate from their "personal understanding" after reading him or listening to his talks, I have provided Krishnamurti's answer to Lady Emily on this specific issue.

Yes, we do not need to be hung up on anything but there should be a respect for truth and understand the distinction between dissolving the order and saying he was not a W.T. Even in his 1929 speech dissolving the order, he said 'I am concerning myself with only one essential thing: to set man free.' For argument's sake, people can in fact easily consider this statement to be the mission of a W.T. I will stay out of such debates.

All other stuff about apparent contradictions and so on are your personal opinions/inferences which you are certainly entitled to. I have nothing to say on such matters. Best wishes. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 203.101.42.172 (talk • contribs) 04:52, 28 February 2007 (UTC)

please keep it clear: nobody is saying that jk was not a world teacher. all i'm saying is that making any positive or negative statement on it is only an opinion, no matter how strongly it may look to you that he was or was not a world teacher. does it belong in a biographical entry? in my view, only if it is expressly treated as an opinion. Mr.e-i-b 16:47-16:48, 28 February 2007 (UTC)

Alright give it up already. we know what you think, and I have no more conlficts with the content. VanTucky 16:49, 28 February 2007 (UTC)

well look at the following statement, inserted (again) in the article in the "philosophical awakening" section:

"though he was never to deny his role of the 'World Teacher' until his death as he himself stated on several occasions."

now why is this non-denial so important in the first place? krishnamurti himself did not give the matter too much import and refused to acknowledge it as meriting serious discussion. and all the stated non-denials were made in private, to people close to him, as if there was a "separate" teaching somewhere. as if there was an "esoteric section" (re: the theosophical society), or something similar, that was privy to info not worthy of public dissemination.Mr.e-i-b 19:06, 1 March 2007 (UTC)

One last try. Reasons:

1. It is the truth.

2. It is your personal opinion again that the non denial is somehow not important, and only the rest is important and must be included. On the other hand, there are many who will argue that his non denial is itself significant.

3. K has had several discussions about it.

4. It is hilarious to compare the activities that supposedly went on within the E.S. with K's private group discussions that were recorded, some even on K's insistence. They are also available to the public, as my citations reveal.

5. K has had thousands of private interviews, meetings, group discussions etc which he and/or others have recorded. They are just as substantial a number as his public talks. They cannot be wished away or dismissed simply because they don't conform with your personal understanding of his teachings. Best wishes. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 203.101.42.172 (talk • contribs) 11:42, 2 March 2007 (UTC)

no, you have to do better than that. starting with the cited quote from m. lutyens from "life and death of krishnamurti", jk himself says that it is not important who or what he is (ie whether he's the world teacher or not). so how is his non-denial of it important? and if it was important, why did he not make the same non-denial publicly in 50+ years of talking to millions around the world? are there even any private discussions where he considered the question of whether he was the "world teacher" as important? in fact, it's just your opinion; so why should the non-denial be given special consideration? in balance, i think that a section should be added in the article with direct verbatim quotations from jk pointing out that he did not consider himself anybody's teacher; indeed that was the meaning of the "pathless land" as he himself made clear. it should be easy to compile a few hundreds of these quotes from public lectures/group dialogues through the years, using the cds and cut-and-paste them here. for brevity's sake i should stop at a few hundred.Mr.e-i-b 17:58, 2 March 2007 (UTC)

Schools

I think we need to add a siginficant section on the schools JK founded around the world. it was a big part of his work and little to no mention of it is made. VanTucky 19:35, 27 February 2007 (UTC)

Completely abandoned

I removed the phrase "and completely abandoned the Theosophical Society." I have the following reasons. First it seems argumentative. The remainder of the article gives details about Krishna's later life, there's no need to try for a forced summary in one shot. Second it seems controversial. I do not believe that Krishna *suddenly* abandoned, the phrase may imply that. It was probably a long process. I'd like to see some citations or quotes for something like that. Thanks. Wjhonson 07:19, 1 March 2007 (UTC)

You are correct in removing the statement about K 'abandoning' the T.S-suddenly or deliberately. No such citation will ever be found since it is not true. On the contrary, there is a section in the biography by Pupul Jaykar that deals with Krishnamurti getting involved with the T.S. from 1979 onwards. He encouraged a member of his own Krishnamurti foundation to run for the office of the President of the T.S. I will spare the details here but the relationship between K and the T.S became close and he once again started to visit the T.S campus where he had been found and raised as a boy.

There seems to be a rush to judgement and a haste in posting personal opinions. This site will be better served by due diligence and research. The facts may not always be to ones liking, especially with regard to Krishnamurti, but that is not a reason to abandon them in favor of personal whims. Best wishes. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 203.101.42.172 (talk • contribs) 09:10, 1 March 2007 (UTC)

and the effort to make jk a latter-day-theosophist continues...nobody said that the split with the theosophical society was "sudden", but it was complete. starting with the unequivocal statement on the dissolution of the order of the star [no organization will lead you to the truth etc etc]. since everybody loves to refer to ms. lutyens' bio, you can check out jk's purported reaction on hearing that rajagopal had never resigned the theosophical society (that apparently came to light during their long dispute). jk did visit the society again from the 1970s on, a few times, and apparently was in good terms with ms. burnier. does this mean that he changed the core of his "teaching"? no. does this mean he changed his mind about something else? only if you can read it. it's as likely, and as much supported by the available evidence, that first and foremost he reconciled with his past, which included the theosophical society, leadbeater, and his formal upbringing. so maybe the complete abandonment of the ts and his early past did truly happen then.Mr.e-i-b 18:47, 1 March 2007 (UTC)

Please read carefully what has been said. I removed the 'abandoned the T.S.' phrase simply because it was wrong. He did not abandon the T.S campus physically, he did not abandon his contacts with many T.S. members. In fact, he continued to lecture on the T.S. campus even after the dissolution in 1929 until the death of Dr Besant. This is unrelated to his teachings. The part about his teaching has already been dealt with in the article and that part is still the same. If by removing the phrase (as we should), it means that K is being presented as a theosophist, then one can only have sympathy for such inferences. Best wishes. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 203.101.42.172 (talk • contribs) 05:04, 2 March 2007 (UTC)

more fudging. now it's about his physical presence at the campus. yes, he did visit ms besant there a couple of times, after all she was like a mother to him. and he did know many theosophists, the majority of the star members were also members of the ts. he also lectured there a few times until ms besant's death. and this proves what? that he was somehow still related to it? this is about the person and whatever his "philosophy" was. and after the 1930s there was nothing to do with theosophy. why do you insist in linking him with theosophy, as well as the other theosophical doctrine of the "world teacher" is beyond me.Mr.e-i-b 18:08, 2 March 2007 (UTC)

It proves that it is wrong to say 'K abandoned' the T.S.'. You are welcome to look up the meaning in the dictionary. You have again twisted things to bring in the issue of his 'relationship' with the T.S. That is not the issue here. Nor is the phrase talking about his philosophy. It has been clarified a few times, and is also self explanatory. But if you don't want to understand, that is your affair. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 203.101.42.172 (talk • contribs) 04:01, 3 March 2007 (UTC)

Changed it to the technically and cited correct version of: distanced himself from the organisation and its teaching/practices, though remaining on cordial terms with some members and ex-members.VanTucky 04:11, 3 March 2007 (UTC)

no sir, he did not "distance" himself from the theosophical society's "teachings/practices". he completely, unequivocally, and permanently repudiated them and any other organized and/or "mystical" teachings/practices throughout the remainder of his life. according to him, that repudiation was the core of his "teaching", and remained so till the end. it is amazing to me to see this effort and need to categorize and fit jk into some recognizable mold. respectfully, imo, that's proof you have not understood the first thing he stood for. and then we have that anonymous poster who sees significance enough in a few social visits by jk to apportion space in a limited article that covers a life of 90+ years. that's another opinion, in an article that has plenty.Mr.e-i-b 19:44, 5 March 2007 (UTC)

Perhaps it would make more sense to state that he revoked his ROLE in the TS? This would avoid people getting personally heated, as its unarguably true and doesnt lead to false conclusions. On the other hand, I think that K having good realtionships with members of the TS and holding talks on or with them definetly doesnt still make him "part" of the TS. I believe a lot of members, or former members of the society actually started paticipating in K's philosophy, not vice-versa. --85.180.148.120 11:36, 9 June 2007 (UTC)

Long quotations

Placing multiple long quotations into the article to support an editorial position is inappropriate. Please make them short or better yet, just put in a reference to the cited text and leave it at that.--Blainster 17:03, 1 March 2007 (UTC)

Van Hook

The people who most directly influenced Krishnamurti in his early period are relevant. The Van Hooks were certainly in that circle and the conflict regarding Hubert was not minor. He was not just "one of several". He was on intimate terms with K during these years, as was his mother, part of the inner circle, etc etc. Wjhonson 18:40, 8 March 2007 (UTC)

there were a number of people "intimate" with jk around that time, but their life is not what's being discussed in this entry. and a number that directly influenced jk, although whether the van hooks were included is doubtful, considering the tight reins on jk by his "minders". as for the quest for the "vehicle", leadbeater practically never let up, prior and after jk. there was always someone on the pipeline.Mr.e-i-b 19:14-19:17, 8 March 2007 (UTC)

I cannot comment on whether that might be true, however Lutyens does not mention *any* other possible vehicles except Van Hook. That is relevant wouldn't you say? And if there were many, perhaps you could find a citation that states who exactly they were. It would be interesting to have a list of them. So far, van Hook is the only one I've found named explicitely and certainly he is the only one who actually came to India for training. That's makes his position unique. Wjhonson 20:16, 8 March 2007 (UTC)

i suggest people look into leadbeater's life in more depth for details on his various proteges. around the period in question there was also rajagopal (look at "awakening" ch. 10 also ch. 14) and theodore st. john ("awakening" chapter 24 and also jayakar p 66). granted that not all of them had jk's exalted status. but this doesn't make the van hook "candidacy" any more relevant.Mr.e-i-b 20:43, 8 March 2007 (UTC)

As you're well-aware, Van Hook is the *only* other person mentioned by Lutyens as being a potential "vehicle" for the indwelling of Lord Maitreya. Van Hook is also the *only* other person mentioned by Besant in that same category. Also Van Hook is the *only* other boy brought to India to be tutored for this purpose. That does make Van Hook more relevant than any other protege of Leadbeater's. Wjhonson 01:15, 10 March 2007 (UTC)

that's not the dispute here. the point is that this is about jk, not leadbeater or his proteges. there is way too much irrelevant detail in the article and way too little of substance about the subject.Mr.e-i-b 03:09, 10 March 2007 (UTC)

The fact that VanHook was the only other boy, besides Nitya that Krishnaji was allowed to be around when he was at Adyar. Not relevant either? The fact that Mrs van Hook was Krishnaji's teacher not relevant? Wjhonson 18:08, 12 March 2007 (UTC)

relevant to what? our understanding of k? or leadbeater? or the theosophical society? and how is the fact that mrs van hook his teacher, among several others, and for a limited time, relevant enough to be included here? how many details about third persons are going to be included? Mr.e-i-b 18:18-18:20, 12 March 2007 (UTC)

The relevance of Van Hook is to Krishnamurti.Wjhonson 18:26, 12 March 2007 (UTC)

really? how did van hook's "candidacy" for messiah affected k? it affected van hook, that's for sure.Mr.e-i-b 18:30, 12 March 2007 (UTC)

Flaws in the Article

the article on the whole is still unsatisfactory, with way too much weight given to the period up to 1929 and to the links with the theosophical society. plus, way too much space given to statements that he made in private, compared to space given to his actual "philosophy". there's also no mention of the famous "process" that started in 1922 in ojai, ca (his legal - and only residence) and went on throughout his life. also, no mention of the celebrity status he had acquired before world war 2, and the relatively quiet war years (apparently the authorities were a bit concerned about his pacifist leanings). no mention of the new friends he made after the war in newly independent india and newly liberated europe. scant mention of the regular speaking schedule, including the annual weekly retreats in saanen (switzerland) and elsewhere, a gruelling schedule that continued to the end. no mention of the new popularity he found with the hippie generation of 1960s and other young people in the 1960s and 70s. and on and on it goes.Mr.e-i-b 16:34, 7 March 2007 (UTC)

i have recently spent considerable time editing the article. it is a perfect example of all that is awful about wikipedia. the ease with which half-truths, editorializing, opinionated emphasis, selective quotes taken out of context, etc, can become "fact". and that's even before one considers all the trivial, unrelated details and little anecdotes that maybe belong to a full scale "interpretative" biography (of which there are several about jk) but hardly in an encyclopedic entry. then we have the unnecessarily "florid" (and, consequently, suggestive) language - my opinion is, if you want to write poetry, then be a poet, not an editor. finally there is the typical over-linking, over-templating and over-categorizing endemic to wikipedia. it's not as if jk is an uknown quantity: there's plenty of sources for contributors to the article to form rounded opinions before commiting to post.

the most embarassing and unacceptable item, to me, is the continued presence of the "theosophy" box, insinuation of a permanent and continuing link between theosophy and jk. this indeed shows that a little knowledge about the subject can be a dangerous thing. the theosophical society is linked in several places; that's more than enough.

the "see also" section is unnecessary, as a user has already mentioned. we can end up linking half of wikipedia to this.

there's practically nothing about the bulk of jk's life (after the 1920s) or of his "philosophy", but the article is overlong already, and still pretty messy. i started editing the criticism section, but i realize how much needs to be done to portray the criticisms, and the responses to them, in a balanced and fair manner.

this is a flawed article, and i'm not particularly proud of contributing to it.Mr.e-i-b 20:11, 9 March 2007 (UTC)

The 'presence of the "theosophy" box' does not 'insinuate a permanent and continuing link between theosophy and jk'. Religious templates are used in biographies when a person has been some sort of central figure in that movement. They should not be perceived as insinuating anything about what they did before or after. On another note you had asked me whether we should add a *golf* template. Yes if Krishnamurti was a central figure in the development or practice of golf. But he wasn't. That's why the Theosophy template is important to retain. Wjhonson 01:19, 10 March 2007 (UTC)

wrong. first of all, the addition of the box is an editorial decision, not some sort of automatic action. there is nothing inevitable about adding any kind of box to any article. you have to do a better job at explaining why a subject - who for the greatest part of his life did not consider himself (or considered by anybody who knows the minimum about him, including theosophists) a theosophist, a mystic, or a religious figure, has to be linked in such way. secondly, you are also wrong on the facts. the subject was not a central figure in theosophy, you will not find any such reference anywhere except this article (what a coincidence). neither was he a central figure, or just a figure, in "its development or practice". he had as much to do with the development and practice of theosophy as he did with golf, which was known to be one his favorite sports for at least as long as he was associated with the theosophical society, if not longer. i was also being sarcastic about the golf template, seeing that the article cannot possibly get any worse or more opinionated. the links to theosophy in the text are enough. to recap: the subject at maturity did not consider himself a theosophist. those around him agreed. official theosophy and most theosophists also agree. who disagrees? wjhonson, that's who. at least make clear that such classification is your opinion.Mr.e-i-b 03:03-03:18, 10 March 2007 (UTC)

I don't understand how you could say that he was *not* a central figure in Theosophy when he was the Head of the Order of the Star from 1911 until he dissolve it. And the Order was the focal point of the entire movement. That sounds pretty central to me. Wjhonson 07:31, 10 March 2007 (UTC)

all of the above are just opinions. see the history of the theosophical society, and the turmoil caused by the whole "krishnamurti adventure". the order was not "the focal point of the entire movement", but mainly of the leadership of the international section of the time and their allies. furthermore, since the order did not adhere to any of the 3 principles/requirements of membership of the theosophical society, it can not be strictly considered a theosophical organization. you are entitled to your opinion; but be explicit about it - although ideally the box should just go, it should have never been put there in the first place.

this problem of wrong classification and over-linking (the electronic equivalent of attention-deficit-disorder) is endemic to wikipedia. the mere act of classification, if outside of objective measures such as according to date, location etc, introduces editorial bias. so it is very important to actually know something about the subject before rushing into categorizing, linking, and templating. just because it is easy to do, doesn't mean it has to be done. just because "theosophy" or "hindu" or "brahmin" is mentioned, does not mean that links/templates/nice looking little boxes should automatically appear.Mr.e-i-b 15:55, 10 March 2007 (UTC)

I think you over-characterizing what has occurred in this case. The box is not present merely because the article *mentions* Theosophy. It's present because of the central nature of Krishnamurti to Theosophy. You yourself admit the "Krishnamurti crisis" shook Theosophy. That should be enough to inform the casual reader that Krishnaji was central. Otherwise his disaffection would have been treated like that of the other thousand or so members who left over time. But it wasn't. Wjhonson 00:55, 11 March 2007 (UTC)

"it's present because of the central nature of krishnamurti to theosophy"? this is an opinion. yours. also, it could be said that is you who over-characterize the link to theosophy, by including the box among other things. theosophy, and the society, has been linked in the text too many times already. this is more than enough to "inform the casual reader". what a "casual reader" may understandably assume by just looking at the article, is a continuing link between k and theosophy. otherwise, why would the box be there? it should be clear: if you are ignorant about a subject, you're also ignorant about classifying it properly. wikipedia is wonderfulMr.e-i-b 15:43, 12 March 2007 (UTC)

-Hi, I read this article out of curiousity, having been a long time reader of K and also a reader on issues relating to K. My general impression is that a more academic tone should be taken throughout. One of the general problems with K's public image is that he is viewed as a new age guru or religious teacher and therefore has not attracted or been subjected to very much rigouous academic or philosophical criticism, compared to, say, his comtemporaries Huxley and Bohm. A factual article which emphasises and contrasts his views on consciousness, thought, intelligence, etc (it seems to me at least), would serve him better as a serious thinker. There is little mention of his collaboration with David Bohm, for example, or his work with psychologists. I think that the biographical details could be given more succinctly and also made to include more about his middle and later years. The criticism section should be beefed up and could include some of the views of David Bohm , who did make a written critique at some point. I don't think that UG Krishnamurti should be included as a respected critic as he is more of a marginal character who has not garnered very much serious attention compared to someone like Krishnamurti, who authored many books and founded some well-regarded schools. In summation, I think that the image of K presented in this article is too reverential in tone, and not factual enough. He deserves to be presented seriosuly as an Indian thinker, flaws and all. M.Eiger 14:18, 16 March 2007 (UTC) -

thank you. please join this. the only disagreement i have relates to what you say about ug. i've no idea what a "respected critic" looks like. i can only judge by the critics' words. as far as that's concerned, i think ug makes some interesting points quite incisively and logically, that at the very least, deserve an airing. like jk himself had remarked, the level of attention given somebody is hardly a mark of their "worth" (bad word). also jk did not "author many books". he also had misgivings about the direction of the schools practically until the end of his life. i don't know whether jk cared about being well-regarded either, but he certainly said he didn't (in so many words) countless times. but again, please join this.Mr.e-i-b 16:24, 16 March 2007 (UTC)

Hi. I think that there are criticisms that are more weighty and well referenced, such as those by Bohm, Ravindra, and perhaps Buddhist scholars. Many of the comments that I have seen from UG appear to be immature and crude. K, for all his shortcomings, is in a different class from UG. Your point about the number of books that K actually wrote as new material as opposed to the published talks and compilations could be correct. However, even so, UG, is not anywhere near being in this league to the extent that he could be considered a major critic. Not that he should be eliminated entirely, but perhaps a more rounded presentation is possible. Obviously you have worked very hard and are to be commended, as K should have an exceptional article. With reference to the schools, I think that their problems and K's misgivings could be handled somewhere in the article. I was thinking along the lines that K did establish them, thereby demonstrating that he was not someone caught up in nihilistic and nonsensical abstractions in the way that UG seems to be at times. M.Eiger 20:05, 16 March 2007 (UTC)

by all means, please do whatever you think is going to help a proper presentation. i agree that the existing ug reference and link are enough, so i guess it's about adding or expanding on other critical aspects, as you mentioned. on another note, personally, i can deal simultaneously with jk and ug without conflict, but that's just me.Mr.e-i-b 20:15, 16 March 2007 (UTC)

It will be a big job to get a proper presentation for this article. I agree with you that the theosophical material and quotes have been overdone. K may have been 'central' to the Theosophists, but the Theosophists were not 'central' to K after 1930 insofar as he officially and publically dissassociated himself from them, as you stated. I think that it is a big stretch and even dishonest to represent him as belonging to that 'fold' in an encyclopedia article; just as, for example, it would be improper and misleading to refer to CG Jung as a 'Freudian.' Another concern is that the sheer amount of hagiographic material pertaining to his early life will detract and distract from the presentation of his actual philosophy. M.Eiger 00:42, 17 March 2007 (UTC)

that's my concern too. please see my proposal to reposition the article in the section above [below]. i still think that the introduction (maybe a little beefed up), the list of published works, the references and the external links is all the article needs. i've done a bit of work on this, but as i said, i really don't care if it all disappears. the main thing is to have a proper entry. ofcourse if you'd rather add material and do selective removal to balance the entry, i can go with that too - although i think it's inefficient and duplicative. please contribute.Mr.e-i-b 20:09, 17 March 2007 (UTC)

I read what you said above and wonder if you think that it would be preferable to develop separate articles on aspects of his philosophy rather than include so many different headings? If this is to be a lengthy article (which appears to be inevitable if the parts about his early life are left as they are now) then much more material would need to be introduced about the middle and later years of his life. If the article were to be cut down to size, then it could possibly refer to additional articles. I looked at the featured article on Ludwig Wittgenstein just for reference/comparison and saw that it did include quite a bit of biographical material , objectively presented (an example of a poorly done hagiographic article would be the one on 'Osho'). Also, are you suggesting that the criticism section is not needed? In addition, I agree with your removal of the reference to 'sidhis' in the meditation section, as this struck me as an antiquated quote used inappropritely.M.Eiger 02:34, 18 March 2007 (UTC)

no, if this is a more detailed article, obviously the "criticism" section is necessary. there is a lot of material to be refered to in criticism, for instance helen nearing's impression that he was incapable of forming "normal" personal relationships, also varied criticisms of his abruptness and insistence in discussions, etc etc. i took out some of the details from the early life. i think a bit more should be added in how his language changed through the years, starting with the gradual abandonment of theosophical terminology from 1925 onwards. also how different subjects took the forefront in different periods of his life. how does one pick? i think a starting point is saying a little about the constantly recurring themes, such as meditation, the proper way to listen, choiceless awareness, ending of thought, etc. etc then there's his influence on different types and agegroups of people in the various periods of his life (bohm would be one, fuller another, the young people in the 60s and 70s etc). also the fact that he would occasionally "renew" or "replenish" his friends and close associates (something that many of them could not easily get over, it also seems he would cut off very abruptly people who became too dependent). then you have things such as the "process" and his very frequent references to the so-called "immensity" and "sacredness" which others "felt" too some times. ofcourse, as i said maybe it's better just to keep the biography short.Mr.e-i-b 22:29, 18 March 2007 (UTC)

A Proposal To Reposition the Article

• the article is too long as it is
• too many unnecessary details that can be easily found elsewhere
• the over-emphasis on the early part of his life and the links to theosophy
• great amount of work still needed in order to give a rounded and balanced picture
• goes well beyond what an encyclopedic entry requires

because of all the verbosity and its unavoidable details, a great amount of unnecessary talk over issues otherwise long settled (or at least, extensively discussed) in more proper fora has taken place on this page.

so i think the article should be restricted to include only the following:

1. the intro and "his legacy" recombined in a single section, maybe with some of the biography info truncated.
2. the following sections: "list of published works", "references" and "external links"

and that's all. if you may, let me know what you think about this.Mr.e-i-b 16:32-17:37, 12 March 2007 (UTC)

No, if you want to cut sections, do it in the quotations, teachings etc. those are the sections that are verbose without any accompanying paragrahical text or justification. All the present Bio info is completely neccessary per wp guidleines. Truncating the bio summary in the intro paragraph is fine, but even if its shortened bibliographic info about his writings and biographers doesnt belong in an intro. The reason alot of time is spent explaining his early bio is that it is the section requiring the most explanation to those that are unfamiliar with his life. henceforth with his talks and other things it is fairly straightforward. Nowhere in the article doesnt it even hint that it was the most important time to study JK life, but a person's youth is formative and begs recognition in the case of such an extrordinary circumstance as being named a messiah at childhood. VanTucky 17:00, 12 March 2007 (UTC)

I rm the repetitous sections. All sections regarding quotations unaccompanied by encyclopedic text are superflous and belong at Wikiquote as simple quotations. Let's try to keep the article on topic. I rm the intro section chroniclling biographers bc it is listed at the end of the article. that is the accepted format for bios on WP. VanTucky 17:20, 12 March 2007 (UTC)

agreed about the quotes etc. now the present bio may be relevant according to wp guidelines, but necessary? the details of what one deems "necessary" is the problem here, and wikipedia is not the forum to resolve this. i just want to stick to the facts of dates, locations and actions as much as possible, and provide the info for someone who wants to look into it further. one thing that has not been disputed until the advent of this article (judging from the comparative weight) is the fact that krishnamurti's influence and recognition was much, much greater after 1929 than before (i purposefully disregard the fleeting media attention to the various scandals and celebrity status during the early period).Mr.e-i-b 17:32, 12 March 2007 (UTC)

There is a section dealing with his legacy and significance later in the article. Bio info, including the Theosophical issue, is included as a prelude to understanding the course of his life. a biography. and that episode is certainly an important event in JK's life. Just bc say, baseball player is famous for home runs, doesnt mean we leave out his early life or other things for the sake of emphasis on what he was famous for. so it takes a few more words to tell about JK's growing up than his impact. so what? as it stands the article is far from too large. You might want to look into cutting down the general info section of the External Links though. 10-15 links is about tops for WP:EL standards. VanTucky 17:54, 12 March 2007 (UTC)

nobody said anything about leaving out the early life or the links to theosophy. this is about over-emphasizing them, starting with the theosophy box. now as for his later life and "legacy", compared to the early parts, they are woefully inadequate and underweighted. feel free to undertake the burden of presenting all this in a concise, balanced, neutral manner.Mr.e-i-b 18:14, 12 March 2007 (UTC)

And why it's that way was previously explained. I happen to have Lutyens first book of the trilogy. I do not have the other two. Thus the article is based on the sources at hand. If someone has book two, it would make sense to add those details. I don't know those details, I don't have the book. That's the reason it based primarily on his early life. I assume that *someone* has a book on his philosophy or later life, I didn't add those sections. Wjhonson 18:17, 12 March 2007 (UTC)

well, no. it makes sense to not publish anything until a complete picture is presented. unless the lemma is renamed "some notes on the early life of krishnamurti". the intro and reference sections i alluded to would be more than enough for a fairly inclusive entry, and probably would have avoided a lot of the drama.Mr.e-i-b 18:26-18:28, 12 March 2007 (UTC)

The proper way to go about changing overall emphasis from his early life to his later works (if youre a bonified wikipedian that is) would be to expand those sections needing it, not to downsize sections we have worked on for clarity, accuracy and readability for weeks. add, dont detract, if you want more info on a subject. And again, the Theosophy box is there not to place JK just as some subsidiary issue in the context of Theosophy, but bc he is a related TS topic in the scope of that category. It fits the categorisation rules. VanTucky 18:32, 12 March 2007 (UTC)

as i have done a lot of the additions "for clarity, accuracy and readability for weeks", i have no problem at all relegating them to the dust bin. this is not about preserving my, or your, work, however nicely put together. it's about presenting a proper encyclopedic entry. as for the theosophy box, you're just wrong. see the sub-section "flaws in the article" on this page.Mr.e-i-b 18:40, 12 March 2007 (UTC)

Jiddu Krishnamurti is topically related to Theosophy. it is an empirical fact. and its not about "preserving our work", its about keeping this BIOGRAPHICAL wp article (part of the Bio wikiproject) intact with as much CITABLE BIOGRAPHICAL INFO (of which his episode with the TS is one part) as possible. Look at other bio pages, the JK page does NOT have too much personal history. and under WP guidlines (which you seem to be just ignoring) the page is included in the Theosophy scope, and therefore the infobox stays. Dont take it as an attack on JK or a conspriracy to further tie him in as a Theosophist footnote or something. the article makes it clear from the intro on that this was just one facet of his life. again, key word here is biography. the last thing anyone needs to do is cut bio info from a biography. VanTucky 19:03, 12 March 2007 (UTC)

wrong again. this is not a biography, but a lemma in an encyclopedia. we can cut as much info as we want, as long as we preserve a balanced, rounded approach, and source/bibliographical entries for further research so interested parties can pursue it. the wp guidelines, are just that, guidelines. the "casual user" will not read the guidelines to know the nuances. they can as easily assume of a continuing link between theosophy, the society, and jk and his "teachings". the box does not belong here any more than a box dedicated to annie besant or hinduism does. it should just go.Mr.e-i-b 19:15, 12 March 2007 (UTC)

can anybody actually tell why the article links to theosophy/theosophical society are not enough and why this theosophy box is so important?Mr.e-i-b 19:20, 12 March 2007 (UTC)

You're not understanding what WP is and is not here. the internet isnt going to run out of space. This isnt a traditional encyclopedia, and while it is written in "encyclopedic style" it's biographical entries (and this is again, a page under the Bio Wikiproect, which connotates that it is a biography) are not limited to footnotes of personal histories. and again, if you want the sections on his later and early life balanced for size (not that necessity of explanation seems to matter to you) go ahead and EXPAND. there is no reason to make any large bio cuts. and I dont know what terminology youre working with, but "lemma" is not a word I am familiar with in WP terms. and the WP guidelines define what makes a WP bio entry. They are not to pick and choose from. and if you dont understand the purpose of category infoboxes, read their def. VanTucky 19:23, 12 March 2007 (UTC)

i understand very well what wp is and is not, and how it can be abused. just because the internet has unlimited space, it doesn't mean it has to be bloated full of hot air. first, the addition of any template, is an editorial decision, and noone is bound by it. my main concern is not making any article consistent with whatever template somebody has put there but presenting the right info. you categorize jk as a theosophy topic, but that's only your opinion. even then, i don't see the importance of that box. theosophy, and the theosophical society are as of last count mentioned 14 times in the article, and linked 3 times. why is this not enough?Mr.e-i-b 19:37, 12 March 2007 (UTC)

see the WP entry on "build the web". how is deleting biograpical information for editorial emphasis "the right info"? again, expand the other sections if you want them to have more emphasis rather than make deletions to biographical information. and dont be so defensive about any connection between JK and TS. "they" nor I am trying to impose a Theosophical POV or some outdated artificial template on the page, but we do have to mold the article under the general standards of WP style and the Biographical Wikiproject in particular. TS and JK are related topics. but if having the infobox really is a thorn in your side, I'm willing to delete it despite it's qualification for inclusion. just leave the complete account of his bio be, and try and expand more info in places lacking rather than nitpick over section size. VanTucky 19:44, 12 March 2007 (UTC)

taking irrelevant, unnecessary, easily obtainable info out of an article is hardly contributing to "editorial emphasis", but by doing so, emphasis is placed on the important stuff by default. nobody said that jk and theosophy were not at one time related. they just were not related as emphatically, or closely, as that box could have a casual user believe. you think that the box is qualified to be included. even if that's not just an opinion (which it is), why do we have to include everything that's "qualified" in the first place? there are several exhaustive bios on the subject, and countless other sources. the box should have never been put there.Mr.e-i-b 20:49, 12 March 2007 (UTC)

Honestly I dont care about the damn infobox, its not really my edit anyway. I just wanted you to know that per the guidelines set down for the format, it could be included on the JK page. I dont think it absolutely needs to be, but facts is facts. VanTucky 20:54, 12 March 2007 (UTC)

The Theosophy template box has been added to all sorts of people for whom Theosophy was not their *entire life* so to speak. For example, it's on the page for Abner Doubleday, its on the page for A P Sinnett. Both are examples of people who had a life before, during, and perhaps after that had nothing to do with Theosophy. Mr E I B thinks that it has to be used only on those pages for people who did not reject Theosophy. I disagree. It's used on those pages for people who are well-known as being central *at some time* to Theosophy. On another note, I believe it's quite likely Mr eib doesn't have any other biographical source on Krishnamurti, otherwise we wouldn't have these pages and pages of discussion with almost no movement on expanding those parts of his biography that need work. Wjhonson 03:44, 13 March 2007 (UTC)

what you believe about my "biographical sources" is irrelevant, and also easily disprovable by examining the edits i've made. i don't believe that the article should be expanded at all until the awful, misinformed, misquoted mess has first been cleared up. once the ignorant, pov-type statements are removed from the article, we can see about whether the subject can be tackled. what i'm going to resist, is making this somebody's "pet project" including my own. or making it "interesting" or "nice-looking" or conforming to some arbitrary wikipedia standard at the expense of veracity. the article should not have been started because it was incomplete. there were also a bunch of quotes taken out of context to push a pov and opinions galore. you were around. you could have used "sources" to see and correct that. but you didn't.Mr.e-i-b 17:44, 13 March 2007 (UTC)

I told you what sources I have. I'm not going to "correct" quotes that I cannot source or disprove. The only part of this article I have worked on, is the early life up until he disbanding of the Order. That's the *only* part I've worked on. Hope that's clear. That part is well-sourced and as soon as the rest of his *life* is expanded to the same size than the article would be a balanced treatment of his life. I have no opinions on his philosophy whatsoever, I didn't work on it, I don't know anything about it, I've never read any of his own books. Wjhonson 18:52, 13 March 2007 (UTC)

GA?

I think, what with the recent cleanup by several users and so many good inline cites and such that this should be put up for GA review. any objections, comments? VanTucky 17:24, 12 March 2007 (UTC)

i have no objections either way. certain quotes and phrasing still need further elaboration, i think.Mr.e-i-b 17:44, 12 March 2007 (UTC)

Removed quote

removed the following quote from the "meditations" section, as it was unsourced. if anybody knows the source, please reinstate: “So a mind that is in meditation is concerned only with meditation, not with the meditator. The meditator is the observer, the censor, the thinker, the experiencer, and when there is the experiencer, the thinker, then he is concerned with reaching out, gaining, achieving, experiencing. And that thing which is timeless cannot be experienced. There is no experience at all. There is only that which is not nameable.” Mr.e-i-b 17:00, 16 March 2007 (UTC)

more info needed

imo, more info needed in the article:

1. how jk's language, themes and audience changed through the years

2. the different circles of associates

3. his early celebrity and the apparent non-effect on his personality

4. the middle years (1930s-1960s) including the quiet war years and the authorities' concern over his pacifism.

5. info on the foundations and various schools, including more on his educational concerns and influence on people such as maria montessori etc, as well as the discussions with teachers and students.

6. more of the relationship with huxley and bohm and the 2-way infuence, his contacts with indira gandhi, and his take on the indian non-violence/independence movement

7. the influence he had on people such as alan watts and henry miller, deepak chopra etc, as well as the interest of the 60s and 70s generation.

8. better articulation of the recurrent themes such as meditation, education, choiceless awareness, proper listening, rejection of authority, etcMr.e-i-b 18:17-18:20, 25 March 2007 (UTC)

i should also add, there's no info yet in the article about jk's impression on women, especially in his younger years, and his "forgetfulness" of the past and how he maintained it had no hold on him. also his idea that true meditation, and the understanding of the teaching both engendered, and was the result of, "mutation".Mr.e-i-b 18:42, 25 March 2007 (UTC)

Ojai

I have a problem with this passage: "He gave his last talk in India a month before his death, in 1986, in Ojai, California." Does this sentence mean that he spoke in Hindi, or that Ojai, California is actually in India? It makes no sense, can someone please clarify this? 68.161.226.112 14:18, 27 March 2007 (UTC)

It has been reworded. He spoke in Madras, India, and died the following month in Ojai, California. Krishnamurti spoke only in English, though many of his books have been translated in most Indian languages. Best wishes. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 203.101.42.172 (talk • contribs) 07:42, 29 March 2007 (UTC)

Removal Of India template

I removed the "India" template from the discussion page, as I believe K's concerns were universal, and any attempt at narrow classification is contrary to the essense of subject and the discussion. Please voice your objections, if any.Mr.e-i-b 15:26, 28 March 2007 (UTC)

'reverent' material

Is there any chance that there is going to be a compromise or a consensus regarding the amount of 'reverent' material in this article? I'm talking about the heavy references to the vacancy, purity and alleged 'non thinking' quality of K's brain as a child (among others). Obviously K had to be able to think and remember things or he could not have functioned. My concern is that a Wikipedia reader who is new to JK will receive the impression that he was just another vague, inspirational Eastern Guru or even the leader of some kind of oddball cult with uncritical and mindless followers. Perhaps there should be more emphasis on the nature of thought and consciousness according to K and less of the very subjective and open to interpretation material about the state of his brain or consciousness or his 'Christlike' demeanor. M.Eiger 12:46, 30 March 2007 (UTC)

I am sorry to disagree with you, Eiger. There are two fundamental reasons. Firstly, the statements of K themselves repeatedly emphasize the 'vacant mind'. For example, his Notebook is entirely based on this. Having three quotations out of hundreds he made about this topic is certainly not 'heavy'. Second, and more important reason. We all have to be aware of the real danger posed by the 'I know better than the (ignorant) reader' attitude. If we are able to tell the difference between K's teaching and any other eastern guru, so can the readers. Our feeling (conscious or otherwise) of superiority is what leads to interpreting K's teachings for the sake of 'others'. And inevitably failing, misleading, and falsifying his statements. As one person has been doing here on a daily basis, with his head buried deep in the sand. This is precisely what K had repeatedly warned about. Otherwise we will end up like the medevial Church that ultimately did not want people to even read the bible. There is a good reason why even official biographers like Lutyens, and Jayakar simply reproduced K's statements in their books. K statements can seem contradictory, revolutionary, traditional or whatever it is. But at the very least we need to preserve their veracity and not distort/replace his quotations by our 'better' descriptions and commentaries blinded by our inflated sense of understanding.

On the nature of thought and consciousness, I will add them under the appropriate section soon. Best wishes. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 203.101.42.172 (talk • contribs) 07:54, 31 March 2007 (UTC)

this nonsense is not worth responding to. but this person again shows ignorance by asserting that k's biographers "simply reproduced" his statements. they actually often surrounded them with a lot of questions and observations of their own, as anybody who has actually read the biographies, as well as the other literature by the biographers and others can see. the point here is that your main concern is painting k in terms that represent a very narrow and at best questionable viewpoint. the history of your edits from way back proves this. well, this is not happening any more.Mr.e-i-b 17:50, 31 March 2007 (UTC)

agenda

there is one person who has an agenda here, basically trying to describe k according to aryel sanat's book and other such interpretations in some sort of "mystical" lore. as far as i'm concerned there's going to be no compromise at all regarding this. this is primarily a biographical entry. this person keeps bringing isolated instances of k's quotes where it suits his/her purposes, taking them out of context, or promoting views and language of k which k later discarded, or used sparingly only in order to appeal to and be understood by, a specific audience. this person would also add emphasis where there was none, in order to support his/her views, and add plainly wrong info for the same reason. he/she has forfeited any right to work on this article; i'm going to make sure that this is the case by reverting any edit the person does. as i said before, the article does not have to include details. the problem was, in addition to the so-called "editor" mentioned above, there were truly ignorant people editing this, with a very limited knowledge of k. also, there were others trying to find a "middle ground" between views of k, muddying the article even more, and making it even more long-winded. isn't wikipedia wonderful? there is quite a bit of relevant info to be added, so there's still work, including more citations. one thing i'll try to work on, is replacing all quotations with descriptive language, as i think the article violates copyright by including quotes verbatim without permission. may i also say that i very much appreciate your work, and your comments.Mr.e-i-b 14:31, 30 March 2007 (UTC)

Thank you. I agree that your general approach is the correct one in this context, but are there any procedures for approaching the problem of the continued inclusion of so much mystical material which reappears within a 24 hour period of it being edited out of the article? Could this person be persuaded to create an article on 'Theosophical Perspectives on Krishnamurti' or some such thing and let this article remain more or less biographical, academic and objective in general tone? M.Eiger 19:56, 30 March 2007 (UTC)

Dispute resolution

In the last days, Mr.e-i-b (talk · contribs), 203.101.42.172 (talk · contribs · WHOIS), 65.88.88.214 (talk · contribs · WHOIS) and 89.240.14.218 (talk · contribs · WHOIS) have been contributing and reverting each other. I do not care who started, as I am interested in who can stop this. I have fully protected the article for 72 hours to force a discussion, and leaving a notification in the talk page of every user. I expect you all to discuss here about the changes that are being done, and reach consensus in the wording. If, by the time the protection expires, you continue to revert each other the way you were doing, you will be blocked for Wikipedia:Three-revert rule and disruption. -- ReyBrujo 17:16, 1 April 2007 (UTC)

my edits, and my comments in this discussion page, are more than enough to clarify my position. i have nothing more to add, except that the person requesting the protection, was very much involved in disputes regarding the article. before protecting the page, you should have taken a look at this page and the article, to see how it evolved since the article first started. but you "don't care" about all that, instead you run to completely restrict access...typical.Mr.e-i-b 17:37, 1 April 2007 (UTC)

also, the user with ip 89.240.14.218 has made only minor, grammatical or syntax edits, as a quick examination of his/her edit history would reveal. s/he has nothing to do with the so-called dispute.Mr.e-i-b 17:50, 1 April 2007 (UTC)

Thank you. Mr.e-i-b, I was just going to point out the same - I have only done a few small edits to improve the sense in places and have not done any reversion. 89.240.13.237 22:04, 1 April 2007 (UTC) (formerly 89.240.14.218).

I am sorry for having included a 89.240.x.x in the bag. Somehow I added him while reviewing the edits by 65.x and 203.x. 203.101.42.172 (talk · contribs · WHOIS) has been editing for a long time this article with the same ip, yet nobody tried to contact him at his talk page to speak personally with him. Instead, people prefer to discuss through edit summaries, which is not permitted. Gain consensus, request a Third opinion if necessary, but stop discussing through summaries, because that disrupts the article improvement. The dispute has been going on for enough time to dismiss who "started" it, and focus on who wants to "finish" it. -- ReyBrujo 22:28, 1 April 2007 (UTC)

it's easy to finish it: protect that article, or/and block the warring parties, without such annoying side-issues as actually figuring out the issue and exercising some sort of judgement as an administrator. all diseases can be cured by killing the patient.Mr.e-i-b 13:45, 2 April 2007 (UTC)

But Mr.e-i-b you've made it fairly clear in the past that you have a confrontational attitude with anyone who disagrees academically with your edits. That's why I've basically stepped away from this article for a while. So I completely agree with a cooling-off period. Wjhonson 17:21, 2 April 2007 (UTC)

please point me where i was any more "confrontational" than anybody else. also where i was "confrontational" with people disagreeing with "my edits" rather than with a fair representation of the subject. after all the best possible outcome for me would be to dismiss everything except the intro and the sources, and that includes a lot of "my edits"; i made that point already. i don't care why you stepped away from the article, neither has the article suffered in my opinion due to your absence. by your admission, you have a very partial knowledge of the subject's life, and none about his philosophy. this ignorance did not stop you from editing anyway, therefore slanting the article towards the small parts that you do know, rather than the subject as a whole. i find your comment above untruthful and disingenious.Mr.e-i-b 17:35, 2 April 2007 (UTC)

Discussing through revertions, not even talking to the user in his talk page, is a childish behavior. I expect that from new users, or even from ips, but not registered users. Registering an account implies learning about how Wikipedia works, what our rules of conduct and discussion are, and respecting them. If you don't know how to discuss with another user, but instead prefer to disrupt the article by continuously reverting it, then someone must step in and stop this edit war, by either blocking the users due three revert rule or by protecting the article.

My duty here is to Wikipedia first and foremost. I block users to prevent further harm in articles, I protect articles from becoming battlefields, I delete articles that do not fulfill Wikipedia requirements. So, when an edit war is brewing, my first duty is to prevent the article from being damaged. I can do that by either talking to the users, blocking them or protecting the article. It is apparent the edit war will continue even if I try to talk to each of you, so I decided to protect the article to force a discussion. I would do it again if I needed to, and I will block if necessary if the misconduct continues. You say you are here not to make friends but to spread the truth. Well, I am here not to make friends, but to protect Wikipedia environment from being abused. -- ReyBrujo 18:12, 2 April 2007 (UTC)

could you point to me where in your estimation, i "damaged" the article? i did revert edits, but did this "damaged" the article itself? most anxious to find out.Mr.e-i-b 18:39, 2 April 2007 (UTC)

In the IP and your case, you were reverting each other time and again. One of your first iterations as a signed user in this article was on December 20, 2006, when you tidied up the edit of an IP who stated Deleted the incorrect statement that Krishnamurti lost faith in his role as the World Teacher. In fact, this is the only role he accepted, remarking in his death bed, 'I am still the World Teacher'. in other words agreeing with the fact that he would never accept, privately or publicly, his role as WT. Shortly after, on the same day, someone else reverted you, stating remove inaccurate sentence, you cannot prove that something did not happen, please cite your sources. Also on that same December 20 another anonymous inserted a note about Interestingly, immediately after disbanding the Order of the Star in 1929, Krishnamurti had himself addressed the issue of a liberated human being living in the material world and how such a person might be perceived by others ending with a reference to a date, March 1930. And guess what, just yesterday, April 1, 2007, you were reverting the same paragraphs. I call editing the same paragraphs back and forth between two or more editors (what we know as edit war) damage to the article, because two casual readers can come to the article, read it, and get different meanings because one got to read "your" revision and another "the other's" revision. Articles should be stable. Discussion is good at the talk page, not inside the article. If you write something and someone else reverts you, don't revert again, instead contact the user and create a thread of discussion. And continue the discussion until both agree on something, don't just drop it. If the user does not collaborate, does keep going back to his revision even after a good consensus from the editors is obtained, or otherwise dismiss the consensus, warn him that consensus was significant and that he should respect it. If he still does not accept it, report him to WP:AN/I or another administrator board. There was a resolution by the Arbitration Committee that consensus must be respected, and those who do not respect it can be blocked or even banned from editing those articles.

All of those involved in the edit war are at fault for not stopping this before scalating. We can blame ignorance (you did not know there were formal ways to solve a dispute), agenda (the user is interested for a particular reason on having those edits there), custom (the user has been taught in good faith that, out of several options, a particular interpretation is the correct one), extremism or fundamentalism (the user does not acknowledge other options, only one) or just vandalism (user likes to make others angry and to spread misinformation). Whatever the reason, the article has been locked, and you are given an opportunity to give opinions of more than 200 characters (the limit of the edit summary), giving information about what each of you think what the other's motives are and to get someone to listen to your complains. It is up to you to use it or not.

I find it strange you did never notice something wrong with your Reverting to version prior to usual disruptive behavior statement. In Wikipedia, we don't solve conflicts by reverting and saving until the other gets tired and leaves. -- ReyBrujo 19:57-20:00, 2 April 2007 (UTC)

is the use of the word "usual" the bother? because as you can see from the edit history, this was not an isolated incident. i was not the only party to the dispute. at least i'm talking to you. but do what you think you have to anyway, and i'll do likewise.Mr.e-i-b 23:19, 2 April 2007 (UTC)

You apparently still not understand. I am not against you in particular. I am against all of you who participated in so many revertions that you called them "usual". Never should reverting to a previous version be "usual". That should be used only in very specific situations, in example, vandalism. And if you consider someone else's edits vandalism, you should report that to WP:AIV. I acknowledge that you may not have known about that, that is why I am telling you all of this now, so that if, after the protection expires, you (or anyone else) continue with this behaviour, you would not be able to claim "ignorance" to the fact that reverting is bad and that it should be notified to administrators or experienced users for mediation. Sorry if you are taking this personally, I am trying to let it clear that it is for anyone who has participated in the revertions. -- ReyBrujo 00:06, 3 April 2007 (UTC)

please don't assume i take this personally. i just think that your whole reasoning is wrong. i consider "damage" an incorrect, one-sided article. you consider damage a procedure contrary to wikipedia's mechanistic, arbitrary, legalistic standards. a machine could enforce those. for me a user is ill-served when confronted with incorrect info. for you, a user is ill-served by the turmoil that accompanies the discovery of truth. no manner of procedural dissembling will discover selective quotes taken out of context, emphasis where it doesn't exist, and the other acts of omission i noted in the discussion page. for that, you actually have to make a judgement. in the absense of any mechanism, i did make a judgement, and laid my reasons in the discussion above. maybe i'm wrong in my judgement; please show me, and i will recant. but all you find wrong with me is procedural. i'm sorry, that won't cut it with me. so, absent "protection" (i appreciate the irony of the term) nothing changes for me.Mr.e-i-b 01:54, 3 April 2007 (UTC)

I am offering myself to mediate, as a neutral party, and knowing the policies and guidelines of Wikipedia. I would like to know if you consider me neutral enough to do this, and if so, if you could explain, in the subsection below, your points so that I can understand everything. If you don't consider me neutral, you can ask for a third opinion or even request a mediation. If you consider having the only truth that is acceptable, I would like you to post that in the section below, so that I can measure how many of the editors in this article agree with you. As a last option, if you know the only truth and decide not to discuss, you are actually part of the problem and not the solution. To reach Consensus, everyone must give up something. If someone provides a reference for a claim, and the reference is reliable, it can be accepted in the article unless consensus is demonstrated to be against it. A mediator is not here to impose a solution (that is what the Arbitration Committee is about), but instead to try to find the point in which everyone agrees with determined content in the page. The lack of cooperation between the individuals writing in the article is visible, explains the 100 day old revert war, and damages the spirit of cooperation the Wikipedia community expects from its contributors. -- ReyBrujo 02:27, 3 April 2007 (UTC)

i have no "truth" to offer. that is the whole point. i treat this as a bio entry, dealing primarily with facts, and supplying references for people who want to pursue the subject further. now some people insist on expanding this, necessarily going into material subject to interpretation. others were admittedly ignorant of major parts of the subject's life. still others (the ipuser) wanted to use the article to correct what they thought of as "misconceptions" by the public of the subject's life. so they used quotes where it suit them, adding their own bias as emphasis etc, then crying when their ploy was called or when found with no argument. all that is clearly laid out in the discussion above. i want to avoid interpretation, and present the subject as objectively as possible. that is my truth. now your supposed lack of bias is "accidental" because it is based on ignorance of the subject (i'm not saying this in a derogatory manner). it seems to me then that whatever decision you make relative to the subject will for all purposes be random, and therefore acausal as it relates to the subject. that decision may then seem unbiased but it is not, for the reason (ignorance) i laid out above. when you have extensive knowledge of the subject as well as the way editors can slyly introduce bias; and you are still not interested in giving any position undue weight; i consider that unbiased.Mr.e-i-b 13:47, 3 April 2007 (UTC)

Mr.e-i-b is refering to me of course. I just want to say that yes, I have been involved in edit disputes in the past. But I have always worked to discuss disputes on the talk page and furthermore, I have not reverted or been involved at all in this current dispute between Mr.e-i-b and the anons. I have not edited the page since the 26th of march, well before this particular edit war. VanTucky 18:08-18:10, 1 April 2007 (UTC)

please. you are one of those who insisted on the article being all-inclusive rather than concise as i was suggesting, which guaranteed it would obviously touch on contentious subjects. are you surprized by the controversy? especially when you have people such as the user ip 203.101.42.172 who is either misinformed, ignorant, has alterior motives, or just misunderstands the scope here. as i mentioned before, i have absolutely no objection in gutting the article and leaving just the introduction and the reference sources, even though i spent a lot of time on it. but if it is to stay, i'm just not going to allow the slant i've discussed at length above in this discussion page. so this person who decided to just restrict the article - not caring about how things got this way, can take it from there.Mr.e-i-b 18:27, 1 April 2007 (UTC)

You need to be more civil. Calling people ignorant is not going to resolve this. And it doesnt matter whatapproach you take to writing an article, if the subject is controversial then there will be controversy. There isnt anything you can do about it now, but what you can do is make a compromise like a polite person and not get your editing privileges revoked. VanTucky 18:35-18:38, 1 April 2007 (UTC)

when i can see that somebody is ignorant about a subject, but insists on pushing their version regardless, i am going to call them ignorant. obviously, i'm interested about this subject. i'm not here to have a wonderful relationship with other editors; i'm only concerned with a fair, non-positional presentation of the subject, according to generally accepted knowledge of, and commentary on, the subject. there is plenty of material to prove or disprove me. as i said, the road down which you insisted the article to go, would obviously lead to bends like this. the article can acknowledge the controversy but it doesn't have to touch it, this is not the forum for it. i couldn't care less about my editing privileges. i said what i have to say.Mr.e-i-b 18:48, 1 April 2007 (UTC)

btw, regarding ipuser 203.101.42.172: an examination of the editing history and logs indicates that this is not the only ip this person has been using. in the past he was editing under a different ip, insisting on the same themes. other users had also problems with his approach.Mr.e-i-b 19:09, 1 April 2007 (UTC)

Hi: After following this situation for a couple of weeks, my impression is that the editor with the user IP 203.101.42.172 is presenting a religious viewpoint that has parallels to the way in which, for example, that a believing Christian would present the story of Christ. It seems to me that MR.eib is right when he says that K sought to downplay the Theosophical hoopla in favor of making factual presentations, including but not limited to forays into science and psychology. K said on at least one occasion that the understanding of the Theosophists was too concrete and too literal. So why should the Theosophical legend of the coming of the world teacher be given a central place in this article which is about the biographical facts of what K actually did? He clearly broke away from the TS interpretation of his life. The assertion by the editor in question that others are 'interpreting' but he/she is only presenting the 'facts' seems very suspect when the quotes selected are all pointing to a very specific story line or theory of Theosophy which seeks to keep Krishnamurti within their fold by means of various rationalizations. I think that there could be another article about the Theosophical (Messiah) theories of K. It looks like some of these people think that K went wrong, while others try to rationalize or fit what what he did into the theosophical framework. This article is biographical and should cover highlights of his life and work. After 1929 he was not officially connected to the TS. M.Eiger 20:39, 1 April 2007 (UTC)

Again, Mr.e-i-b, it doesnt matter what your wishes are. you need to act with courtesy, its part of editing WP. and since you obviously care about this article deeply, then it seems to me you might want to make it easier for people to listen to your side of things. I'm not really interested in the particulars of the disputed content anymore, but it might be helpful if you made a specific list of things you want rm'd or added for people to discuss. VanTucky 00:49-03:08, 2 April 2007 (UTC)

i choose truth as i see it over courtesy. you don't. neither of us can take the high moral position on this, but i'm not interested about people listening to "my side of things". for me, wikipedia is not a substitute for socialization. i'm interested in people forming a rounded picture of the subject without any emphasis on any particular point. that is nobody's "side of things". i'm not going to allow bias as i see it just in order to have all opinions present. also i'm not writing a novel, or poetry, or a biography. my point is to make the article as dryly informative and neutral as english language allows, and also as succinct and compact as possible - the observations i've added can be readily deduced from the text. this is not a new subject. there is an abundance of material elsewhere for whoever wants to engage in serious study, rather than cutesy banter in wikipedia's pages. as for list of things, it is obvious you have not been paying attention to this talk page, where i laid out my concerns a number of times. also, it seems you haven't gone through the edit history to see what and how this evolved (if you did , i apologize). ok, i know better now. articles in which you've contributed should be avoided at all costs.Mr.e-i-b 13:31, 2 April 2007 (UTC)

I (203.101.42.172) have been contributing to this article for many months, on all sections. Though it is a small percentage of my contributions overall, material dealing with K's discovery and early years/relationship with TS have resulted in this blocking. Generally, I have only been adding material/sections and I don't remove anything with proper citation. Except blatant falsehood as per records I am able to verify. However, I find one individual, e-i-b, determined to have the final say on all material that differs from his supposedly "correct" viewpoint, whatever that is. Even where the content is authentic and properly cited. This has gone to the insane extent of replacing Krishnamurti's own statements with e-i-b's personal analysis. Of course, quotations from people who knew K first hand (such as his childhood teacher Woodhouse) are deleted with impunity. Pathetic justifications have been given for this behavior, the most recent of which is that "even Lutyens did analysis". Yes, but Lutyens (and Jaykar) NEVER replaced K's words with their own versions, his biographers never LIED when the facts were clear, and they showed their very restrained analysis to K and got his consent before publishing them. Mr e-i-b has LIED (one example: deliberately refering to K's process as "visions", even though this explanation has been rejected by K himself). I am not saying e-i-b did so deliberately, but the moment anyone thinks he knows best and calls everybody else "ignorant" in public, it is inevitable we end up with a distorted article.

If it helps anybody in conrtibuting to this article, I have been selecting material based on 3 criteria in order.

1. K's own statements from public talks, private meetings etc. From throughout his life, on ALL aspects, in diverse countries.

2. Statements from his two official biographers and those who knew him personally for many years.

3. Other sources as a last resort if relevant.

I would suggest that the simple alternative to any perceived bias in quote selection is to add another, if available, as a counterpoint. This will present both sides. Rather than indulge in uncivilized name calling. And deleting factual material simply because it is not palatable. Thank you for your time. Best wishes. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 59.92.65.53 (talk • contribs) 07:29, 2 April 2007 (UTC)

i rest my case.65.88.88.200 13:39, 2 April 2007 (UTC) Mr.e-i-b 13:40, 2 April 2007 (UTC)

So now we have user VanTucky, warning me in my talk page about being "uncivil". without providing any proof ofcourse - maybe he's wikipedia's "mr. manners". i wonder what his definition of "uncivil" is, and if i'll see it in action in my case.Mr.e-i-b 17:47, 2 April 2007 (UTC)

Discussion about removed quotes

Now, I do not know about the subject at all, so I am not biased. I notice, through the last revert, that several sentences that apparently have been quoted from books were removed. I would like to ask what each of the involved parties think about these references. Are these books reliable (as in, published by a major publisher, good sellers, written by recognized authors, etc), or are they magazines or minor books from unknown authors? Mr.e-i-b says he wants the truth. Well, according to Wikipedia:Attribution, the threshold for inclusion in Wikipedia is whether material is attributable to a reliable published source, not whether it is true. In other words, we don't care about truth, only about what can be verified through a reliable source. -- ReyBrujo 18:18, 2 April 2007 (UTC)

please. the sentence "what can be verified through a reliable source, not whether it is true" is a contradiction in terms, as what can be "verified" is also for all intents and purposes "true". it also assumes a verification method generally agreed on, and an objective measure of source reliability. but i agree with you - at least now we have an official position: wikipedia cares primarily about how it looks, not about providing info that is truthful. quite a statement from a supposed source of information.Mr.e-i-b 18:36, 2 April 2007 (UTC)

When you don't know the difference between "truth" and "verifiable fact through a third party source", it is common to think it is a contradiction. A reliable magazine like Science can say "The fire can be cold after determined temperature," while all others disagree. And you know what? Wikipedia can include a "A study by Science determined it can be cold after a certain temperature, contradicting several other studies denying that fact." because it comes from a reliable source. Also, Wikipedia is not supposed to be a reliable source in itself, otherwise you could use Wikipedia articles as references in other Wikipedia articles. -- ReyBrujo 19:09-19:10, 2 April 2007 (UTC)

i don't want to get into semantics, but a reliable source is also a truthful one, is it not? it is easy to verify that a quote is from such and such a source; when you add that it be reliable you also make a statement about the source's truthfulness. so how can you then state that you don't care whether the source's content is true or not? that would make the source not reliable. the way to get out of this is to say "i don't care about the truth" period. which is the idea i get about wikipedia anyway. a lot of procedure without substance.Mr.e-i-b 22:23, 2 April 2007 (UTC)

We make a slight distinction between "information that comes from a reliable source" and "information that is true". Reliable sources can report a rumor and state that it is possible it may not be true, but Wikipedia can accept that information. Reliable sources are chosen because, generally, there is a sensation that they verify their publications. However, we still make the distinction between both. If you want Wikipedia to change the wording, you are very welcomed to participate at the Wikipedia:Attribution poll: every registered user has a note in his watchlist about that. -- ReyBrujo 00:06, 3 April 2007 (UTC)

It's an important distinction. It's the difference between say; the New York Times and the World Weekly News. VanTucky 00:18, 3 April 2007 (UTC)

as for the quotes, apart from the copyright concerns which i had decided to address just before the protection, i've made several comments in the discussion above about their suitability, selection and alterior motives behind them.Mr.e-i-b 18:48, 2 April 2007 (UTC)

The discussions above are just a mess to follow, with people not signing, using horizontal lines to separate paragraphs, quoting like an email, interrupting each other and failing to indent paragraphs correctly. I would like to help with the mediation, although you can reject me and check other accepted ways to resolve a dispute. If no agreement is reached we can even go to a request for comment, where one or more disputing editors can be banned from editing this article. It is up to you to decide which way of handling the dispute will be taken. -- ReyBrujo 19:09, 2 April 2007 (UTC)

I for one would like to see an admin's continued involvment. As for the dispute, why dont the two perspectives and their respective advocates make a concise list of things they want included/removed with cites? that might be an faster way of resolving this affair. if they cant compromise on this, then block them both. seems simple to me. VanTucky 19:31, 2 April 2007 (UTC)

so why didn't you tell me that you run wikipedia? that would certainly have made things easier for me.Mr.e-i-b 23:54, 2 April 2007 (UTC)

That is not considered constructive feedback to solve this issue. Instead, why don't you just state your reasoning for the reverts you were doing for those who are checking this page? -- ReyBrujo 00:09, 3 April 2007 (UTC)

is it considered constructive to call somebody "uncivil" without proof, and vaguely threatening them with consequences? do tell.Mr.e-i-b 02:19, 3 April 2007 (UTC)

You have called people ignorant, ignored any attempt at compromise by lambasting fundamental precepts of WP(fine to do, but this isnt the forum), and been generally rude and confrontational. that is uncivil and it is the job of any good user to warn you that it is improper and that there are consequences if you choose to continue. I dont want to dwell on it, lets move on and try and fix this mess like polite people. VanTucky 02:34, 3 April 2007 (UTC)

i've called people ignorant as per their own admission. if you are going to call me rude and confrontational you must provide proof. you set yourself as a "good user"; well i don't think you are. or is this opinion "rude and confrontational" as well? your patronizing attitude about fixing this "mess" to which you readily contributed by insisting the article being expansive leaves a lot to be desired, as far as i'm concerned. or is that "rude and confrontational" also? and then you go and cry for protection, being one of the parties to the dispute. so where exactly have you been "constructive"? maybe the gentleman (RayBrujo) who so readily deemed my comment non-constructive can explain this if you can't?Mr.e-i-b 13:23, 3 April 2007 (UTC)

Once again, I said I didnt want to dwell on it. By mess I meant the arguement, not the article nor any particular edits. its perfectly acceptable for parties involved in a dispute to ask for protection, besides the fact that I have not touched the page since the 26th of March; well before this particular edit war started. And no, stating your opinion about my edits and/or behavior without resorting to name-calling or hyperbole is something to be encouraged on WP. Like you and RayBrujo have said, we're not here to make friends. that is all I have to say about this. VanTucky 15:40-20:30, 3 April 2007 (UTC)

your last edit was on march 27th as per the edit history. there, you reverted one of ipuser's 203.101.42.172 disruptions. have you forgotten or are you being "ironic"?Mr.e-i-b 20:28, 3 April 2007 (UTC)

No, I didnt catch it. but FYI, on WP we assume good faith. VanTucky 20:32, 3 April 2007 (UTC)

way past such assumptions afaic, hard evidence of such good faith is needed now.Mr.e-i-b 20:39, 3 April 2007 (UTC)

This is precisely what the issue has been and I am glad you noticed it. I have provided full references with page numbers for all my material. After all, I have been in academics for more than two decades and I can tell an article with proper citations and based on established sources as opposed to personal opinions and (mis)interpretations. As outlined in my earlier comments, I have listed my own criteria for selection of material. Yes, all the material that I have contributed (and I have contributed quite a bit over the past many months) are published in well known books, almost all of them have been through at least one reprint, and all are well known and found in libraries around the world. Just like you, I find that these quotes are removed the next day, because an individual is unable to digest them! I am sorry, it is not my intention to upset anybody, but the material is supposed to be based on research and not whether the material is 'suitable' to everyone. Even the contributor does not have to 'agree' with his/her content, but the facts cannot be distorted. If anybody, we should be upset with Krishnamurti for making the statements! And there certainly cannot be anybody serving as lord and master of this web site, deleting original material with impunity under the pretext of relevance or accusing the contributors of bias/ulterior motives and/or ignorance. E-i-b has been using these tactics. It has reached such a ridiculous situation that Krishnamurti's own statements on key issues are constantly being replaced by those of e-i-b. With warnings such as 'I will not allow this or that' to boot! I appreciate your effort to mediate. But we cannot make fundamental compromises on the right to free speech. After all, this is a Krishnamurti web site and not that of any particular individual. Certainly, Krishnamurti of all people did not give such edit privileges to anyone, even his official biographers. Let us hope good sense prevails.

This is not from my regular machine. Please bear with me. Apologies for any inconvenience. Best wishes. 59.92.45.119 07:52, 3 April 2007 (UTC)

Could you give us some specific cited quotes that you want in 59.92.45.119? VanTucky 15:40, 3 April 2007 (UTC)

The quotes that have been stripped out. The issue is not about what they are, so long as they are authentic, but rather the denial of free expression on this site. Anyhow, to answer your question: K's childhood, his process, his comment on the world teacher, and his taped statement before his death. By the way, ReyBrujo who noticed the deletions and offered to mediate, has still not restored these quotes. I have already vouched for their references and it is simple enough to verify but the current article still contains personal viewpoints in place of the original quotes. Best wishes. 203.101.42.172 09:25, 4 April 2007 (UTC)

So the deadline approaches -- on your marks, set, go...... I have taken an interest in this article, though only making a few minor edits so far. I would have to say that I too find appropriate, accurate, sourced and referenced quotes on a particular aspect of K's teaching as more appropriate than any interpretation. I would also say this about his 'process'. This was a totally individual experience and is best described in his own words without any interpretation or speculation as to what they might or might not have been.

As an example, taking a section from the article:

It started on the 17th, with extraordinary pain at the nape of Krishnamurti's neck, and a hard, ball-like swelling. The next couple of days, the symptoms worsened, with increasing pain, extreme physical discomfort and sensitivity, total loss of appetite and occasional delirious ramblings. Then, he seemed to lapse into unconsciousness; actually, he recounted that he was very much aware of his surroundings and while in that state, he had an experience of "mystical union".[31] The following day the symptoms, and the experience, intensified, climaxing with ecstatic visions and a sense of "immense peace".[32]

As this is not in quotes I take it that it is a WP editor's version of something from a book. I would consider it more appropriately here to have an actual quote of a person who was present during these events or K's actual words about them. The experience was only in K and the experience of seeing him go through it was only in the experience of the people present with him at the time. No interpretation is needed only the description of the process.

I may not have put this as clearly as I would like but you may see something in it. I think it is important in writing about this man to stick to the facts of his life and as much as possible his actual words. Throughout his life he was asking people not to interpret him. What is the need to interpret - he said what he said. If you don't quite get it the first time, read it again and again. If it was easy then the whole world would live in the truth he taught.

There is the basis of a good article here on one of the greatest spiritual teachers of the 20th century but I would say it needs a fair bit more co-operative work to make it so.

The devil is working hard (see story about devil and coin in article). :) 89.240.13.128 11:58, 4 April 2007 (UTC)

i entered the text and the other paragraphs about the process.

i will start at the end of your commentary above.

if you start with the notion that jk was "one of the greatest spiritual teachers of the 20th century" then you won't have "a good article", since you start with an opinion; you've already reached a conclusion, which you will consciously or unconsciously, "prove" in the article. that maybe "good" to you, since it's also obvious to you. but this is not about you.

there is a difference between examining one's life and interpreting it. (an aside: he was very emphatic in anybody standing between him and the public as an interpreter. that doesn't mean he didn't want people to "interpret" the teachings for themselves, as that's what everybody does anyway when they encounter anything. he urged people to examine for themselves.) but i'm not the one who used quotes to push their view of things. read the whole thing, see the whole history of this and you'll understand. preferably i want no quotes period, and not just because of possible copyright issues. plus, they are not necessary in a biographical entry.

if you had followed the footnotes you would have seen the references around which the paragraph you quoted was based on. namely, the biographies by lutyens, jayakar, and vernon, along with what i hope you recognize as common-sense descriptions by me for the sake of brevity. for instance, jk in his account goes on at length about "seeing" the "Lord" etc etc. that was truth to him; considering his state at the time, as far as anybody else is concerned, it is not i think, extraordinary to call this an "ecstatic vision". i'm not going to take jk's explanation; i'm not going to reject it. you understand? and since this is a biographical entry which includes extraordinary events, and not the gospel according to krishnamurti, i'm going to add other plausible explanations from other parties. this is not "interpereting" him: it is giving the reader possible avenues of inquiry without taking a position. i tried very hard to use language that does not commit either way. believe me, every word i enter is weighed and weighed again, and always subject to revision towards a better, non-positional presentation.

so here i am wasting my time on explanations i would think would be a little more...self-evident based on all these edits and discussions. i was wrong. based on your own commentary above, i have to say i'm viewing your involvement in the article with some trepidation. sorry if i sound harsh and presumptive, but that's how i see it. i hope my assumptions are proven wrong.Mr.e-i-b 15:12, 4 April 2007 (UTC)

I dunno here. It seems to me that I agree with Mr.e-i-b on this passage. The personal quotation by JK was in before the current edit, and it only talks about the metaphysical sensations he experienced, not the details of the actual events. and furthermore, e-i-b's description is concise and totally NPOV. It makes no positive or negative value judgements whatsoever. that seems kosher to me. FYI: it is obviously common practice in any biography, including wikipedia, to have to take direct accounts of an event and summarize/distill them in succint and NPOV wording. that's what a biography is. you can't have a biography made up solely of the recollections and perspective of the subject, that is not neutral point of view. the tricky thing here, is that we have a unique situation where basically the only person qualified to state JK's philosophical ideas with any clarity and honesty is the words of JK himself. But this isnt a case that involves that. VanTucky 15:57, 4 April 2007 (UTC)

Well, the deadline has passed. I am going to insert the quotations that should not have been deleted in the first place. There is enough material from other sources in the concerned sections and it is ridiculous to omit the statements of the central figure (Krishnamurti) in all this. Best wishes. 203.101.42.172 04:13, 5 April 2007 (UTC)

No, you don't just do that. We are still discussing. Unless you want to begin a new edit war, wait until consensus is reached. -- ReyBrujo 05:49, 5 April 2007 (UTC)

The first quote added by 203.101.42.172 (No thought entered his mind...) illustrates an important point. A recurring theme of K's teaching was the ending of thought - this quote illustrates that in his early life. Surely the point of a biography is to provide some insight into the man which this edit contributes to.89.240.7.84 09:39-09:55, 5 April 2007 (UTC)

Re the second edit by 203.101.42.172 - visions / immense peace etc. These two versions state different things - surely only one is correct? 89.240.7.84 09:51, 5 April 2007 (UTC)

Re the quote on being the W.T. - what could be clearer here than K's own words? 89.240.7.84 09:55, 5 April 2007 (UTC)

Re the 5th part of the edit I prefer 203.101.42.172's version for it's simplicity. The bit about Edison/jet planes doesn't seem to contribute much. Also the sentence, ' This line of reasoning could be thought of as again affirming his statement that there exists no special method, education, or technique in the pursuit of understanding the teaching.' to me doesn't really follow from the previous sentences - rather it sounds like somebody's own interpretation of the teaching. 89.240.7.84 10:05, 5 April 2007 (UTC)

Re the first quote on meditation - it really contributes to this section - meditation was a central theme to K's teaching. The second quote, although illustrative of a point, I'm not sure belongs in this section but I haven't looked to where else it might go yet. 89.240.7.84 10:10, 5 April 2007 (UTC)

I notice Asymptote leaper (talk · contribs) added a statement. I take that this edit is neutral (apparently a modification based on a different reference in the same book) and that the edits made by 203.101.42.172 are still not accepted by either VanTucky or Mr.e-i-b, right? Should the article be reverted to the edit made by Asymptote leaper or by the one after the protection? Or (I can hope!) both of you agree with the edits made by 203.101.42.172 and decide to keep it? :-) -- ReyBrujo 06:05, 5 April 2007 (UTC)

The edit by Asymptote leaper (talk · contribs) assuming it is accurate and properly sourced, much improves the paragraph and shows how an actual quote conveys a lot more information than a summary of what someone may have said. It somehow brings more life to the article, breaking up the blandness which can sometimes creep into WP articles. To me it is a question of getting the balance right between quotes of someone's actual words, quotes from biographies and re-worded summaries of both. 89.240.7.84 09:20, 5 April 2007 (UTC)

I see that the disputed quotes which tilt the article to a mystical or theosophical perspective have been reinserted without enough discussion. Here is what the wikipedia guidelines have to say about neutral POV: "We should not attempt to represent a dispute as if a view held by a small minority deserved as much attention as a majority view, and views that are held by a tiny minority should not be represented except in articles devoted to those views. To give undue weight to a significant-minority view, or to include a tiny-minority view, might be misleading as to the shape of the dispute. Wikipedia aims to present competing views in proportion to their representation among experts on the subject, or among the concerned parties. This applies not only to article text, but to images, external links, categories, and all other material as well. Undue weight applies to more than just viewpoints. Just as giving undue weight to a viewpoint is not neutral, so is giving undue weight to other verifiable and sourced statements. An article should not give undue weight to any aspects of the subject, but should strive to treat each aspect with a weight appropriate to its significance to the subject. Note that undue weight can be given in several ways, including, but not limited to, depth of detail, quantity of text, prominence of placement, and juxtaposition of statements. Minority views can receive attention on pages specifically devoted to them." My point is that selectively adding these quotes about Christ and the world teacher and other material in the manner that has been done here has amounted to the introduction of a bias that represents an overly literal and 'mystical' interpretation. This constitutes 'undue weight' in that the intent seems to be to slyly present K as an incarnation of Christ, the maitreya, etc., just as the theosophists sought to do. The quotes so presented also lend an air of infallibility and presumed divinity to K which are inappropriate in an encyclopedia article as K has said things that were directly contradictory to the idea of God as a discrete entity elsewhere in his talks and writings. The more literal minded of his associates, such as Emily Lutyens, struggled to understand this. Just one example: it is, as Mr.eib says, obvious that in 1922, K and his brother attached theosophical interpretations to what happened under the pepper tree. Later, as K matured, he obviously saw the event in a different light, otherwise he would have gone on talking about the 'masters.' But he did not do so. M.Eiger 14:11, 5 April 2007 (UTC)

I think that 203's addition in the recurrent theme section (knowledge) is perfectly fine, except the middle bit that goes on to long into other subjects could be cut for size On a purely copy editing basis, I think we need to steer clear of adding extremely large quotation sections, that is the kind of thing that necessitated the cleanup of the article that started this edit war.. But the little thing from JK's journals he added not only is out of the context of the rest of the section, it makes no sense at all. I agree that it sounds a little like mystical hogwash. I obviously would under no circumstances let that sillyness about Christ remain. its giving undue weight to a minor idea in the process of the Theosophists trying to create JK into a messiah. You could allow the phrase about maitreya to stand, bc it was central to their mythologizing of him as a term. I wasnt quite sure, but if 203 added that crap about siddhis to the meditation section again, I want it removed. its not only more mystical sillyness, its completely off-topic for the section. VanTucky 16:18, 5 April 2007 (UTC)

I agree with the current revision per Mr.e-i-b's edits. He removed superflous info and kept it in accord with NPOV. I think it should stay that way. VanTucky 19:48, 5 April 2007 (UTC)

So, if you compare the version that was unprotected and the last one, all of you agree that the changes are good, the references are fine enough, and that the removed content is not necessary? I am guessing the IP may object that. -- ReyBrujo 19:53, 5 April 2007 (UTC)

Where is the stop button for an out of control Mr eib-bot?!! It seems out of control. I thought the idea was some discussion and co-operation would take place. 89.240.14.51 20:13, 5 April 2007 (UTC)

Ok, it is clear you don't agree with his views. What about VanTucky? Do you agree with his edits? Or someone else? -- ReyBrujo 20:19, 5 April 2007 (UTC)

i didn't see you respond to my response to your comments above. so much for discussion. and it's funny: didn't you notice a whole lot of disruptive edits by ip 203 after the protection was off? by all means, go back and look. does that seem out of control to you?Mr.e-i-b 20:19, 5 April 2007 (UTC) (this is in reponse to ip 89.x.x.x) Mr.e-i-b 20:25, 5 April 2007 (UTC)

Yes, that is why I asked whether those edits were fine or not, and apparently you reverted. However, you continued editing the article, and I wanted to check if others agreed with you. So far, only 89 disagrees, and maybe 203. If many agree on the changes and one disagrees, unfortunately that is what is called "consensus". However, if several agree and several disagree, we have a conflict. I put this article under WikiProject India, and will ask for suggestions there. -- ReyBrujo 20:28, 5 April 2007 (UTC)

it seems you broke the flow of the discussion. i was responding to ip 89. wikiproject india is the wrong place to ask.Mr.e-i-b 20:33, 5 April 2007 (UTC)

This article is about an Indian topic, so it belongs to the WikiProject India scope. So, as far as I undestand, 89, Mr e-i-b and VanTucky agree with the edits, and apparently only 203 is the one who does not (implicitely by adding content that is not being agreed). With this known, I will leave a note at 203's page to tell him that, so far, consensus indicates he should use the talk page before adding new content to the article due the nature of his edits. -- ReyBrujo 20:53, 5 April 2007 (UTC)

it is NOT an indian topic. and wikiproject india does not belong here any more than wikiproject california, where the subject's official residence was. please. let's stop with the overcategorizing just because is easy to do.Mr.e-i-b 20:59, 5 April 2007 (UTC)

Somewhat I find that comment defensive. Anyways, I left a note at 203's talk page. -- ReyBrujo 21:09, 5 April 2007 (UTC)

i'm sorry if it looks that way. i've blathered at length above about the shortcomings of wikipedia regarding overcategorisation, overlinking etc. actually it is not wp's fault other than being a platform that makes this possible. then people abuse the possibilities by overindulging. that's my view anyway. as for the wikiproject india i had actually removed it, with the reasoning offered, and commentary sought (at the top of discussion page).Mr.e-i-b 21:19, 5 April 2007 (UTC)

can we remove that wiki-india template now?Mr.e-i-b 16:33, 6 April 2007 (UTC)

No, because the WikiProject India deals with persons born in India, regardless of their later residence. Although the topic may be universal, it can be covered by multiple WikiProjects, including Biography and India. -- ReyBrujo 16:41, 6 April 2007 (UTC)

may i ask, what is gained by covering the subject in any 1 or 100 wikiprojects? apart from the resulting obvious fragmentation of opinions on the subject according to neatly compartmentalized arbitrary divisions? thereby fitting one's life in nice little boxes one marked "india" the other "philosophy" etc etc? or are people interested in india and biographies given preferential treatment just because the person happened to be born there and this is a bio entry?Mr.e-i-b 17:13, 6 April 2007 (UTC)

May I ask why you think any attempt to bring more voices and eyes to this article will always work against the article? I believe it is time to direct you to Wikipedia:Ownership of articles. Every article should be covered by at least a WikiProject, whose members may be interested in the article. They may bring more discussion? Well, discussion is seen as the correct way to reach consensus, and should be accepted as the way to move the article forward. -- ReyBrujo 17:27, 6 April 2007 (UTC)

as you can see from this talk page, i've no problem discussing anything with anybody. and i do think that the article is well-served being in the wiki-biography project. but it seems to me you're looking for something different. the problems with the article are about what to portray the subject as, as well how to portray him. he did not consider himself an "indian". he actually rejected that. he did not reject it because of his connection to india; he rejected any such categorization in general. so how is a person, interested in india as per the template, going to respond to this? jk took himself out of such concerns altogether. the same uknown editor can always come here and add their opinion on jk regardless of templates.Mr.e-i-b 18:15-18:17, 6 April 2007 (UTC)

I will let them decide that. If they think this article is not under the scope of WikiProject India, they will remove the template. -- ReyBrujo 18:29, 6 April 2007 (UTC)

i don't know why people interested in india should have any definitive say on this. after all, it was you who re-inserted the template, not them. as per the article ownership, may i refer you to my "proposal to reposition the article"? maybe you'll see that i don't really care about my so-called contributions. but if you think i prevent other people from contributing worthwhile material just say so and i will stop altogether. if i am to contribute, then somebody will have to explain to me in better terms why my position relative the article is wrong.Mr.e-i-b 18:40, 6 April 2007 (UTC)

Anyone can tag the article with any WikiProject tag. Then, a member of that WikiProject will come and check whether this article is really part of this WikiProject. So, I could tag this article with the WikiProject Mathematics tag, and later a member of that WikiProject will arrive and may remove it because the subject has nothing to do with Mathematics. They know which subjects they can cover. -- ReyBrujo 18:57, 6 April 2007 (UTC)

yes. we don't disagree on the mechanics. what i dispute is the notion that an article, any article, should be tagged with any template just because it is possible, without a judgement on the template's suitability. i think this practice of promiscuous templating eventually degrades quality. it all becomes noise and the signal gets lost.Mr.e-i-b 19:09, 6 April 2007 (UTC)

So there are two people making disruptive edits without any consultation then. 89.240.14.51 20:28, 5 April 2007 (UTC)

BTW Mr e-i-b I'm not disagreeing with all your edits; there's some good pruning in there but some I do disagree with. 89.240.14.51 20:31, 5 April 2007 (UTC)

I agree with Mr.e-i-b's edits completely so far. I think that 203's additions were superflous and bloating the article. But I want to say that all users need to remember to explain their edits/reversions thouroughly on the talk page to prevent more edit warring. VanTucky 20:41, 5 April 2007 (UTC)

I agree that today's edits by Mr.e-i-b are in accord with a neutral viewpoint.M.Eiger 20:57, 5 April 2007 (UTC)

Another question: are the edits made by 203 part of a minority? In NPOV spirit, if indeed the edits represent a minority, they can be included because articles should give both opinions, majority and minority. If the edits are obviously original research (comments made by the editor that cannot be attributed to reliable sources) they can be removed, but if not, there is nothing wrong with keeping them. -- ReyBrujo 21:09, 5 April 2007 (UTC)

No, 203's edits have nothing to do with a minority opinion that was published in any source I can think of, its just his/her personal slant to events. VanTucky 21:22, 5 April 2007 (UTC)

Ok, now I understand this better. And the sources that he has been using to corroborate his edits? -- ReyBrujo 21:34, 5 April 2007 (UTC)

As far as I can see, 203's edits are sourced as legimately as anyone elses. It's just that he/she sees the value, in places, of using actual quotes rather than an editorialised summary (or in addition too). Un fortunately 203 is not here at present to comment it seems. I'm not saying I agree with all of his edits but then I'm not agreeing with all of Mr e-i-b's. I'll probably come back tomorrow to see how things read then. 89.240.14.51 21:42, 5 April 2007 (UTC)

What personal slant are you saying 203 is putting on the article? ReyBrujo is only taking VanTucky's word for it - I don't call that understanding the situation. 89.240.14.51 21:45, 5 April 2007 (UTC)

Yes, all of 203's additions are cited. But 203 is using quotations (such as the "ecstatic visions" phrase, and the siddhis comments) that are either off-topic or superflous to the subject in their respective section. The user has also deleted totally NPOV paragraphs by Mr.e-i-b seemingly bc he doesnt like the content, which is cited and qualified for inclusion. I'm not claiming anything about the user's said intent, but the effect the additions have is that it brings this air of mysticism and hoodoo to JK and the article. That is wrong. There is no recognisable minority opinion espousing JK's divinity or mystic attributes today. the additions arent even all that offensive, more like silly. what is the point of including this content? are we trying to sex-up the biography or something? VanTucky 22:13, 5 April 2007 (UTC)

89, to understand the situation, I must understand the actors first. The block allowed me to notice there are five editors interested (right now) in this article, and to notice most of their point of views. I now understand why VanTucky think the reverts of 203's edits are right. I am still waiting for further opinion from 203, but so far, regardless of reasoning (which should be discussed between those editing this article), see the actual edits a step forward instead of backwards. -- ReyBrujo 23:43, 5 April 2007 (UTC)

I do not want to stoop to name calling for it is the surest way to cop out of an issue. As a mediator, you could have verified my sources. Easily. Because most of my referenced books are well known and are being used anyway in various other places of the article! Now I find Krishnamurti's statements have been deleted again with impunity. With self righteous reasons by one or two individuals. To quote them, "superfluous', POV etc etc. These are personal opinions of people, their own POV. They have something to hide, do NOT want the truth to be written, and simply refuse to acknowledge the different facets or aspects of the person and his teachings. What are they scared of?. I for one want to make one thing absolutely clear. I have my proven sources, have done a lot of research, and above all have my rights of self expression. No individual or group can trample upon them. What I write, provided it is true, does not have to be blessed by a tiny 'politburo' here. I am going to insert the statements of Krishnamurti again and they will stand on their own merits. After all, they were part of the article for several weeks before one individual took it upon himself to delete them. I agree with the mediator on one thing. Even a minority opinion can be mentioned. The problem in this case, and surely many people would have noticed it by now, is that the individual objecting to these statements has not been able to either dispute even one of them or come up with other original statements from Krishnamurti presenting a different viewpoint, which they can still do. Therefore, by implication, my statements remain as the only viewpoint, the truth (god forbid) which is unpalatable. Which leaves name calling (POV, ulterior motives etc) as the last alternative. That says it all. Best wishes. 203.101.42.172 05:06, 6 April 2007 (UTC)

No, I REMOVED the "ecstatic visions" phrase purely because it was denied by Krishnamurti. If it is presented as one possible interpretation, I don't have a problem. Just make it clear that is not supported by the citations. On mystcism/divinity. I can refer a few books for you to read, so that you can understand it was definitely an aspect of Krishnamurti throughout his life. Even his taped statement just before his death can be said to be mystical. You can start with the books I am referencing. They are all available directly from the foundations. On the other hand, if this is not your cup of tea, I fully understand. Just don't dismiss it as factually wrong. Nothing could be further from the truth. You find Krishanmurti's public talk in Bombay (1971) silly because he spoke about sidhis. Actually, he did so on many occasions, this time in front of over 5,000 people. Obviously he did not think it was silly. And he related it to meditation. We don't have to like it or accept it, but we certainly cannot deny its publication. Best wishes. 203.101.42.172 05:27, 6 April 2007 (UTC)

There is a distinct difference between the metaphysical, the spiritual, and mysticism. And I dont object to the siddhis just on contextual grounds, its totally out of place in the meditation section. it disrupts it. And again, the idea that mysticism was a part of his life is just your opinion. I've all the major biographers of JK and none of them (or any of the dissident ones) spend anytime talking about mysticism as a significant part of JK after he broke with the Theosophists. In fact, alot of his work afterwards was the attempt to dispell the affect of all that stuff. I don't know any published source who would say that JK was an advocate/practitioner of mystical religous/spiritual practices. VanTucky 15:23, 6 April 2007 (UTC)

Well, it is your personal opinion that sidhis are unrelated to meditation. That is NOT the opinion of many practitioners. Nor Krishnamurti. He spoke many times about sidhis in the context of meditation and WARNED about the dangers as a side effect. Even in the 70's. So it has nothing to do with Theosophical influence. It is ridiculous to remove a statement because of personal opinions. 203.101.42.172 12:04, 7 April 2007 (UTC)

Just to point out that the disputed text about 'siddhis' was quite clearly not saying that JK was an advocate or practitioner of such but that he had insights into it and he gave the benefit of those insights in his talk. The point is that JK was a spiritual teacher and that the nature of being a spiritual teacher is to have a greater depth of perception and insight into the nature of existence than most people. This is one reason why it is important in some cases to use quotes rather than interpretations. I'm not sure if this text should be in or out. If in, it needs to be set in the right context. I would also say that Mr VanTucky by describing it as hoodoo/mysticism is expressing his POV. I'm certainly wouldn't say that it brings an air of mysticism/hoodoo to the article if not overemphasised. It is not saying that siddhis were part of his life. It is in fact a very clear and straightforward piece of text pointing out how he saw these siddhis. 89.240.7.147 16:02, 6 April 2007 (UTC)

do you see that all of the above has no place in a neutral article? first the article presents jk as a "spiritual teacher". ultimately, it's up to the reader to decide if he is or not. secondly "the nature of being a spiritual teacher is to have a greater depth of perception and insight into the nature of existence than most people..."? this is only an opinion about the so-called nature of spiritual teachers that you are expressing. the talk of siddhis were a detail he used to clarify his position on other far more universal subjects such as meditation. he also used it to audiences who would be more receptive to such talk again, in his effort to have them involved in his teaching about other subjects. the continuing inclusion is part of 203's agenda.Mr.e-i-b 16:30, 6 April 2007 (UTC)

Just to say that it the above is not an opinion. Also a question to you - what is the evidence that he used talk of siddhis to 'draw in' his audience? It seems to me that he was pointing out that they weren't that important, and distracted from the real questions of life.89.240.7.147 21:09, 6 April 2007 (UTC)

i find it ironic that a person who was constantly proclaiming that he is nobody's teacher, who asked for his words to be torn apart in serious examination, who was telling people to never accept or deny anything he was telling them, would find such fawning and uncritical admirers. i wonder if this is the result of lack of attention, ignorance, or projection.Mr.e-i-b 18:26-18:28, 6 April 2007 (UTC)

BTW - what is, -- The influence of such admonitions in current Indian spiritual life cannot be readily determined, however Krishnamurti's position seems to presently be a more or less acceptable alternative viewpoint -- but pure speculation and interpretation? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 89.240.7.147 (talk • contribs) 21:21, 6 April 2007 (UTC)

I agree about rm the comment about influence in current spiritual life. its original research. But to state the reason for rm the journal quote again: the opinions about his mental state as a youth are already clearly explained in the passage, the quote is adds nothing to the section. Throwing in direct JK quotes just for the hell of it is what bloated this article to the point that a cleanup was necessary in the first place, which started this subsequent edit war. Please be concise. If the point is already thouroughly explained and the quotation adds no new facts, then refrain from adding it. VanTucky 21:52, 6 April 2007 (UTC)

The fact is it is JK's actual words which convey far more than the summarised text. This lack of thinking was fundamental to his whole life and here he clearly states how it was with him from an early stage. The article as it stands emphasises vacancy as a kind of lack of intelligence and thus puts a POV slant on the section. Adding the quote from JK balances this. The ending of thought was the main theme in his teaching. In fact this quote does add further insight into his 'vacancy' as being due to his stillness of mind rather than any mental deficiency. --------- I have looked again at the paragraphs in this section. The first has words such as: dim-witted, moronic, vacant expression. The second has: vague, uncertain, wooly, holey vessel. Neither of them point out what was behind that apparent vacancy, unlike JK's own words. There are two viewpoints, JK's own perception of his state and a third party's description of that state. To have both gives a sense of balance and a greater clarity. 89.240.7.223 08:26, 7 April 2007 (UTC)

This is exactly the reason why I have been including the quotes. Nothing as authentic as from 'the horse's mouth', especially on a subject like Krishnamurti. One individual has fallen in love with his own analysis. So we have plenty of analysis, far less original quotes from K himself. I have restored the quotes again for this reason. 203.101.42.172 11:56, 7 April 2007 (UTC)

If you think it adds something new (I disagree of course) then I'm willing to leave it. I only onject to it on oraganizational grounds, not on a content or pov basis. But you're absolutely incorrect about it just being "one individual fallen in love with his analysis". I agree with Mr.e-i-b in that you cannot have a biography that only includes the suject's quotations on his life. That's completely preposterous, and breaks NPOV. Other than that, this childish edit warring makes me sick. I'm abandoning this article for the time being. VanTucky 16:29, 7 April 2007 (UTC)

Correct, you cannot have a biography that only includes the subject's quotations but they can be included to reflect and balance third partys' views on his life. And especially in this case with a man of JK's insight whose stock-in-trade was self-knowledge. 89.240.14.174 16:44, 7 April 2007 (UTC)

I agree as well. Nobody objects to third party's opinions. We have plenty on this web site. But we cannot have sections that have insignificant amount of direct material from Krishnamurti himself. And some of the issues pertaining to his personal experiences can only be illustrated by his own words, unless we want to present and analyse only purely speculative content from secondary sources. As I said earlier, no contributor (including myself) has to be in agreement with the material he/she contributes. That is alltogether a different issue. Anyway, I am glad there appears to be some agreement at last. Best wishes. 203.101.42.172 09:08, 8 April 2007 (UTC)

Education

In the introduction in states that K's supporters founded the schools. In the section headed, 'Education' it states that K founded them. Any body got some good source material on this? Any comments? 89.240.7.84 09:07, 5 April 2007 (UTC)

there's a lot of sources and material on this. unfortunately, it is hard to add material (in a neutral way, which involves a lot of research, labor, and constant second-guessing on my part regarding my own words) when most of the time spent is correcting single-minded disruptions. as for the question above, in broad terms they're both technically correct. there can be clarifying footnotes, which i may get to if there's time.Mr.e-i-b 15:54, 6 April 2007 (UTC)

for instance, i have in front of me, several sources about things i added in the "influence" section, some of which are contradictory. it can take me hours of not readily available time to cull those into acceptable, concise references that can be footnoted in support of my recently added text.Mr.e-i-b 15:58, 6 April 2007 (UTC)

i edited the intro re schools in response to the ambiguity you noted. more info will be added in the proper section at some point hopefully.Mr.e-i-b 17:03, 6 April 2007 (UTC)

Yes, that looks better. 89.240.7.147 21:13, 6 April 2007 (UTC)

On the subject of education I seem to remember that K had a part/large part of his own education was at a public school (English usage) - I can't see any mention of this in the article. Again, comments/edits? 89.240.7.84 09:42, 5 April 2007 (UTC)

OK, Ive just found a passing reference to it, 'and later taken to a comparatively opulent life among a segment of European high society in order to finish their education', and have no further comment on it at present. 89.240.7.84 09:46, 5 April 2007 (UTC)

I know that K founded Brockwood Park School in bramdean, england, Oak Grove in Ojai, california, and two schools in india which i believe to be vally school and rishee vally school (those last ones im not certain of). Then there are perhaps 3 or more schools founded not by k, but either by the krishnamurti foundation and/or followers, making them "unofficial" k schools. I realize this all is fairly useless without a citation, but Im hoping this will be helpful in finding source material (im afraid that task is a little daunting for me). I was a student at brockwood park school for four years, so what im saying is fairly reliable. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 85.180.131.209 (talk • contribs) 19:41, 9 May 2007 (UTC)

British or US English spelling?

Noticing a mixture of both in the article, any comments on standardising either way? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 89.240.14.51 (talk) 20:21, 5 April 2007 (UTC).

External links

User:VanTucky has deleted [2] [3] most of the Ext links claiming they are against WP:EL. Would he please tell us against which point on that page they go against? Many of the links do belong here. --Voidocore 13:33, 18 August 2007 (UTC)

Again, the links are either unnecesary (Wikipedia is not a link farm, and unless clearly necessary links should not be included) or violate WP:EL as link spam. With the burden of proof resting on those who would include content to prove its appropriateness, it falls on you to gain consensus for the links. VanTucky ^(talk) 15:42, 20 August 2007 (UTC)