Talk:Jiddu Krishnamurti/Archive 2

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

Archive 4

Archive 5

Who is Krishnamurti/Third opinion

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

I agree that the section "Who or What is Krishnamurti?" is too speculative for an encyclopedia article. It seems to me that some kind of reference to K's purported 'spiritual' status, or his uncertainty as to the 'source' of the teachings can somehow be worked into the article without resorting to a long string of mystical quotes. This kind of quoting will prevent the article from ever becoming a 'good article.' D.Shura 17:49, 20 August 2007 (UTC)

Unfortunately even his official biographers who lived with him for decades were not able to address this issue (Who or what is Krishnamurti) in spite of their best efforts and it invariably resulted in misrepresentation. In any case, the quality of the article on a subject like Krishnamurti can never improve by removing his quotations. And they are a must when dealing with aspects of his own personal life, teachings, and experiences. 203.101.42.172 09:05, 21 August 2007 (UTC)

Dear Anonymous user, This article in an encyclopedia article, and therefore the "Who" question is addressed by stating the facts of his life. In my opinion, it was not only his biographers who were not able to address this issue, it was was also K himself, as evidenced by his answers. Every human being wonders 'who or what' he is and comes up with an unknown. This article should avoid overt suggestions that the subject was divine. D.Shura 12:39, 21 August 2007 (UTC)

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

203.101.42.172 10:47, 22 August 2007 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Third opinion

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

I deleted the material, but since an anon IP user has reverted twice to it a discussion to reach consensus was necessary. VanTucky ^(talk) 23:24, 20 August 2007 (UTC)

I understand the concerns about speculation. It is precisely to avoid speculation that I reinserted a shorter version of the Who is Krishnamurti section. Krishnamurti was not a mushroom that sprouted up one day and started speaking to the world even as a teenager. He had no formal education to speak about, or any traditional 'spiritual' practice/training. In fact, all such efforts ended in failure. Yet he could expound on fundamental philosophical/religious issues. It was inevitable that many people throughout his life asked 'who is krishnamurti' and 'what is the source of the teachings'. No academic study or research can avoid this question and be considered complete. Best wishes. 203.101.42.172 04:47, 21 August 2007 (UTC)

Dear Anonymous user: There are many people who became renowned poets or writers without having obtained formal degrees. This is really not so amazing. D.Shura 12:39, 21 August 2007 (UTC)

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

203.101.42.172 06:48, 22 August 2007 (UTC)

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

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

Best wishes.

203.101.42.172 06:39, 22 August 2007 (UTC)

Empty Head of Krishnamurti

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

"Writing about his childhood in his journal, Krishnamurti wrote: “No thought entered his mind. He was watching and listening and nothing else. Thought with its associations never arose. There was no image-making. He often attempted to think but no thought would come.” [14]"

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

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

203.101.42.172 06:29, 22 August 2007 (UTC)

This is a misunderstanding of the teachings, plain and simple; it suggests that if he was not thinking, then he must have been inhabited or possessed by something. This kind of speculation should not be presented as 'fact' in the article. D.Shura 11:32, 22 August 2007 (UTC)

It seems you are not familiar with the teachings of K or other teachers in different traditions through the ages. In any case, you can stick to your personal belief of 'possession' theory as being the only alternative to a vacant mind.

203.101.42.172 11:50, 22 August 2007 (UTC

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

Circumstances around 1911 move of K and Nitya to England

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

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

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

Best wishes.

203.101.42.172 11:42, 22 August 2007 (UTC)

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

Sydney visit

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

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

203.101.42.172 04:58, 6 September 2007 (UTC)

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

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

LowerMyBalls.com

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

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

WikiProject class rating

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

Intro

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

---

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Sydney visit

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

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

Emily Lutyens, etc.

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

Lawsuit "Verdict"

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

UN peace medal??

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

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

According to the transcript of the Q&A session at the UN, at the very end, the chairman(?) of the Pacem in Terris chapter at the UN (which invited him to speak) presents Krishnamurti with a "UN peace medal". This is linked in the related footnote in the article. Keep in mind there are several peace medals/awards given under the auspices of the UN. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 65.88.88.76 (talk) 15:54, 4 September 2008 (UTC)

On Mental State in Childhood

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

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

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

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

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

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

These are all interpretations. The biographical fact remains that contemporary witnesses described the boy JK as little more than a moron. And this is what we have to go on. Not interpretations that retrofit his childhood to his later status and philosophy. As far as JK himself can be trusted to remember what his mental state was 50, 60 or 75 years later, he said that he was "not thinking" and that his brain was "vacant". Simple, unambiguous, language that he was fond of using. You may wish to attach to this your own peculiar "metaphysical" or "philosophical" explanations so that conclusions can be drawn about what it all meant, according to you. That's irrelevant, and as a POV, such interpretation has no place in the article in any form. As his biographers record, there appeared no mind there to begin with - let alone "states of mind". And this is not meant as some sort of a metaphysical/philosophical concept of "no mind" or "no thinking". —Preceding unsigned comment added by 65.88.88.126 (talk) 17:00, 28 May 2008 (UTC)

For the purposes of an encyclopedia article, any reminiscences by JK or by "contemporary witnesses" also count as a POV. In addition the so called "moron" learned to read and write in English within a period of six months to a year following his discovery by Mr. Leadbeater. This information is contained in a book by his tutor (Clark), another "contemporary witness", and also in the Vernon biography. In order to contribute to this article, you need to go directly to various source material and not rely upon a belief in the nature of the subject's "mind" or poetic liberties taken by admirers.Sach.b (talk) 16:50, 29 May 2008 (UTC)

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

Sach.b, you have to distinguish between the POV of editors of this article and the POV of sources. In case you haven't understood, it's the editors' POV that has to be avoided. Also the problem is not K's quotes, but they way they are presented by the editorial narrative as if indicative of "certain qualities" of mind he had. First, that means absolutely nothing. Secondly, there were no "certain qualities". As far as K could remember - and he frequently commented about how he had forgotten details of his early life - there was an absence of thought. That is why most observers found him "dim" and "dull", more importantly ones who did not have an interest to present a suitable backstory like the CWL/Besant circle seems to have had. We are talking about the impression of the boy at a particular time. He may have been a genious. He may have been a god. Who cares? This is not the purpose of the article's passage. It is how he appeared to others when he was in late childhood/early adolescense. Noone, including any of you, can tell for certain who he "truly was" at that time. All we can indicate is how he was perceived by others at the time, since the boy himself was hardly articulate. JK later thought he was fortunate to have been so vacant, since he considered any preconceived ideas as a hindrance. CWL thought he was fortunate JK was so vacant, because it would be easier to "shape" him. There were no "qualities of mind" there, just absence of it. The text is wrong, and a POV.

"Vacancy" is certainly a "quality of mind" in the sense that there is someone making an observation about said quality. It is a description that is differentiated from other qualities or states. K's assertion is contradicted by other contemporary accounts which say that he could disassemble and reassemble machinery, his rapidity at learning to read and write english, and also the fact that he did have childhood memories that he wrote about later and which he recalled during the "process" as was written about by his brother. I see the use of the word "vacant" as misleading as it is presented. In addition, if you read the sentence in the article to which you are referring, it is talking about more than one specific mental state or quality.Sach.b (talk) 19:24, 29 May 2008 (UTC)

And why dissemble like that about the meaning of words? This is not an article in semantics or semiotics. Further, the particular sentence makes a point: that is, that he "experienced" certain "qualities of mind". Hmmm, that sounds like a POV being surreptitiously put forth. Why not just say that he looked like a dummy (what others said) who couldn't think (what he remembered)? Note the time period in discussion here, it's between the years 5 and 10 of JK's life. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 65.88.88.126 (talk) 19:59, 29 May 2008 (UTC)

65.88.88.126, If he is remembering his childhood state(s) of mind, which he is in the quote, that means that he "experienced" the state. If I recall, there was a dispute among the editors of this article in the fairly recent past because certain supernatural material was being worked into the article. The way in which this quote was placed struck me as being of a similar character, and a subtle POV along the same line. I'm sure you agree that there can't be a five to ten year old who never had a single thought in his life unless he is a vegetable. Apologies for the long delay in replying. Sach.b (talk) 13:20, 25 June 2008 (UTC)

This is the quote:

"No thought entered his mind. He was watching and listening and nothing else. Thought with its associations never arose. There was no image-making. He often attempted to think but no thought would come."

The "experience" that as you say, is remembering here, is that he could not think. He does not remember "experiencing certain qualities of mind". That's YOUR interpretation. You find it hard to believe that he remembered he could not think? Or do you find it hard to believe that he could not think? Well, this is not about what you believe. It's about what the source said and the context in which it was said.

The article is far from objective, but the inclusion of "supernatural material" is not by itself a problem. The problem was, and still is, that some (one) person is giving such material undue importance. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 65.88.88.200 (talk) 19:01, 25 June 2008 (UTC)

Why put a quote like this in the article in such a way that it implies that he never had one thought (that this was his ONE state of mind) until he was an adolescent? This is contradicted by other abilities that he demonstrated which are also mentioned in the article. And exactly why is the use of the word "experience" a point of view? Is it possibly because you have a Krishnamurtian point of view or bias? In the context of everyday, common discourse, "trying to think", "watching and listening", and "no image making", are states of mind in a given individual. If you tell about them later, its something that you experienced. The deeper meaning of his supposed "vacancy" can be left to the reader. Sach.b (talk) 19:51, 25 June 2008 (UTC)

Look, the source is JK. He mentions the "vacancy". If you say it is a "supposed" vacancy, that's an interpretation of the source's words. If you say that it has a "deeper" meaning when the source mentions nothing of the sort, that's a POV. If you say that it does NOT have a "deeper" meaning when the source mentions nothing of the sort, that's a POV. As for the quote, "trying to think" (and failing) "no image making" (he 's talking about mental images) and "watching and listening" (pure sensory, non-mental, existence) all mean the same one state: not thinking. He didn't "experience" not thinking. He remembered, decades later, not being able to think as a child. Whether that is contradicted, or you think is contradicted by other things is irrelevant. Whether you find it unlikely to be true is irrelevant. Whether you think that means that he was in some "mystical" state is irrelevant, and a POV. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 65.88.88.200 (talk) 20:39, 25 June 2008 (UTC)

So the word "experience" is a problem because we're talking about K, and he didn't have any. This doesn't qualify as a point of view since we know his mental state was pure. Sach.b (talk) 21:07, 25 June 2008 (UTC)

We are going in circles here. No, it's not the word "experience". It's the way the quote is put in context, that it somehow means that he "experienced certain qualities of mind". As I said way in the begginning that's an interpretation of the quote (one of many in the article) and has no place being there. Anyway, the article is too far gone imo. Do as you like. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 65.88.88.200 (talk) 22:05, 25 June 2008 (UTC)

Disturbing Creep of Literalism into this Article

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

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

I think that for all practical purposes he does have a legacy, but fine. Sach.b (talk) 13:34, 25 June 2008 (UTC)

The foundations even use the word 'legacy'. Legacy simply means an influence past death I think. I don't see how it implies at all that the foundations are an authority of interpretation. --75.83.11.207 (talk) 22:46, 17 November 2008 (UTC)

Copyright

An editor has inserted a link to the Freeweb website which contains a great many of Krishnamurti's published works. I wander whether that website is violating copyright? I did not notice any waivers by the copyright holders (the Foundations etc). If the site is in violation, I think it should be removed from the Related Websites section. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.190.69.116 (talk) 17:02, 22 June 2008 (UTC)

Yes, freeweb not only violates copyright, but there are mistakes in the works. It would be a shame for it to become a standard reference. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.83.11.207 (talk) 22:44, 17 November 2008 (UTC)

Influence Section

65.88.88.126, you are really doing an excellent job, but in my opinion the opening to the "influence" section is rather weak and vague. It says something like, "Krishnamurti's influence is kind of hard to gauge in an objective way." I doubt that this is the case and that is why I introduced the material about academia and more, which you have deleted. I think that in general the rest of the article is shaping up to be "objective" in tone, so its unfortunate to end up by saying that his influence or the nature of his influence can't be gauged. It can be gauged in term of academic reception (or lack thereof), the reputation of the schools, the scope of what the foundations are doing, people who claim to be "transformed", etc. Can't it? Does this have to be the premise of the section? Sach.b (talk) 13:49, 25 June 2008 (UTC)

Is there any way to objectively measure influence in matters of personal belief? We are discussing beliefs (ie "strongly held opinions", to use a Krishnamurti definition) not facts. Think before you answer. Then you will see why the "Influence" section as well as the "Criticism" section are useless and non-neutral no matter what you do, since they are basically opinion polls - whether they be "academic" or not.

In the particular case though, you left out the second part of the opening:

"Krishnamurti's lasting influence is hard to gauge in an objective way; there is no organizational or other entity based on his "philosophy", whose progress can be measured"

Since there is no entity whose membership or importance in world events would explicitly imply direct influence of Krishnamurti all we can have are indications, not "objective gauges". The Foundations and schools were specifically set up by Krishnamurti as NOT to be such entities. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 65.88.88.200 (talk) 18:46, 25 June 2008 (UTC)

It's not clear to me why his influence in one way or another could not be considered a fact. It's a fact that he wanted the schools and the study centers to continue. It's a fact that there are several Krishnamurti schools and three or four foundations that he set up. It's a fact that the foundations sell so many books per year and that the schools enroll a certain number of students and publish a journal. It's a fact that the foundations sponsor events, and so on. Do you doubt that any of this is factual? So I don't agree that there is no "entity" that carries his direct influence. Clearly there are entities that he sanctioned into existence. The same goes for the criticism section. It's a fact that he did certain things for which he has been criticized. All that needs to be said is that he's been criticized on whatever grounds, since he has indeed been criticized.Sach.b (talk) 02:11, 26 June 2008 (UTC)

I think the neutrality tag is not motivated. The section does the best possible in a tough topic. Unless you propose an influence measuring method yourself, the initial statement is obviously correct. Neutrality of an article is about whether the authors have done their best to reflect outside opinions, by citations, and I think the sections is cited exemplarly. I propose either removing the POV-tag or replacing it with something about structure (sentence, intelligibility) or such, if there might be structure issues. BTW the section is not about organization, the section is about influence, if you want to reflect organization, then author a section about organization, feel free, be bold! Said: Rursus ☻ 11:39, 19 July 2008 (UTC)

I think it is rather disingenuous to claim that he has no "influence" or his influence is not measurable when he founded schools and organizations that are after his death engaging in certain activities. The schools and organizations have a factual existence and to claim that they are not influencing anyone, or are not attempting to influence people by way of their publishing ventures and other activities is going to confuse the general reader. That's why the neutrality of the article has been disputed; because these kinds of lofty claims are being inserted into the article. It makes K and his organizations appear to be beyond reproach and not accountable, since it's claimed that he was not trying to influence anyone and was against organizations. So we can't "measure" his influence. This is a pro-Krishnamurti POV that is being edited into the article. I think that the tag should remain. Sach.b (talk) 12:49, 19 July 2008 (UTC)

You are not making any sense. Is it a "pro-Krishnamurti POV" to say that there's no way to objectively measure his influence? Or do you consider anything/everything that JK said undue influence that has to be pointed out as such? As for the Foundations, do you understand the difference between "active influence" and "dissemination of information"? Where do you read in all this that he or the organizations, are beyond reproach? Did you actually read past the first paragraph to see what the second one says? The whole influence section as I've commented previously, is useless, as is the criticism section. A paragraph of each, with the salient and most important points, can easily be integrated in the biography in the sections that were contemporary with these points. That's where they belong after all, not in neat compartments that people can selectively read and/or edit into unwieldy and ultimately unimportant lists of opinions or factoids. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 65.88.88.173 (talk) 16:11, 19 July 2008 (UTC)

I don't see why the article has to bend over backwards and say that his "influence" is difficult to gauge when you most probably would not say this about other (well known or obscure) authors, philosophers or educators. Read some of the A class articles on Wikipedia and see if they engage in this kind of eggshell walking. Something can be said about influence in terms of book sales, school enrollment, reputation in academia, and so forth. This idea that they (the foundations) are only disseminating information and do not see themselves as possible agents of change may be their own "official" position but does not mean that they have no influence in the world. I think that you are approaching this too literally. AS for somehow integrating this information into the biography, that would be fine with me. Wasn't it you who changed the influence section back to the original, and in my view, vague version? I'm all for doing away with it if it can be done effectively. Sach.b (talk) 21:15, 19 July 2008 (UTC)

OK, let's see: "This idea that they (the foundations) are only disseminating information and do not see themselves as possible agents of change may be their own "official" position but does not mean that they have no influence in the world." Can you see that this is YOUR opinion? You may be right, you may be wrong, but it does not matter - this is not about what sounds plausible, or plausible to you. First, there's no mention at all about how the foundations "see themselves", just your opinion that the article implies they see themselves a certain way. Secondly, everything in the world influences it, so the second part of the statement is self-evident. The section as written does not deny that, it just holds that the influence can only be indicated rather than measured. By all means let us know what "non-vague" criteria (other than the "vague" ones already utilized in the section) you are going to use in order to arrive at concrete, objective, unequivocal proof of influence. Rattling off book sale numbers and website visits, etc doesn't count - in absolute terms they mean nothing, and they're just pr. In any case the un-needed section is about JK, not about the organizations he started, that's just peripheral. Btw, a brief perusal of the edit history will let you know who did what and who re-arranged the article. As for other Wikipedia articles, I couldn't care less. The whole thing is a laugh, their "good article" guidelines are full of holes and conflicting statements. Anyway, that's my opinion - sorry for the sidetracking. I see you started on the road to remove the "Criticism" and "Influence" sections. I am very much in agreement, good work on that. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 65.88.88.127 (talk) 20:55, 22 July 2008 (UTC)

After reading the comments above, I agree with the editors who maintain that the NPOV tag does not seem justified. If everyone is in agreement, I suggest removal of the tag. Please add your comments regarding removal below. Thank you. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 208.105.82.44 (talk) 20:36, 29 August 2008 (UTC)

Agreed. The section is properly sourced. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 65.88.88.76 (talk) 15:56, 4 September 2008 (UTC)

Thank you. Anybody else has any comments to offer regarding the NPOV tag? I've noticed user Sach.b wanted to keep the tag, at least in the past. I propose removal of the tag by the end of September if there are no other objections. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 208.105.82.44 (talk) 18:51, 5 September 2008 (UTC)

In my opinion it should remain for the time being. After reviewing the above comment by 65.88.88.127, I still think that he is making a special exception for Krishnamurti because of the nature of the material which Krishnamurti dealt with. In my view this editor has his own "opinions" and editorial bias. The fact remains that the foundations are engaging in certain activities which are promoting or calling attention to K as an agent of change and this makes this debate look rather silly. Call it "measurement" or call it "indication", there are still practical determinants of influence that are observable, such as book sales and school enrollment. It seems that we will not agree on this point. This is a factual article and not a philosophical treatise. On the other hand, I agree with him that it might be best to eventually phase out this section altogether along with the criticism section. This material can probably be worked into the article by other means. Sach.b (talk) 14:02, 7 September 2008 (UTC)

So please be clear as to what exactly are my opinions and editorial bias. I wasn't the only editor of this section. It is also I think incumbent upon you to provide an alternate influence section that is in your opinion "neutral", so we can compare it with the present one. Otherwise your insistence on the NPOV tag comes across as frivolous. Personally I think you are confusing JK's influence with the Foundations'. They are not the same thing. There are other places in the article where an NPOV tag would be justified, as well as the other no-no, original research. But that's another story. As for the phase out of the Influence and Criticism sections, by all means go ahead. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 65.88.88.126 (talk) 23:45, 10 September 2008 (UTC)

I have to say that I don't exactly understand user's Sach.b concern about non-neutrality in this section. It seems to me that all opinions are backed up by verifiable sources or are otherwise easily verifiable. I do agree with user 65.88.88.126 that the section should be about Krishnamurti's influence only. I proposed (and still do) removal of the NPOV tag because I think it blemishes what is an otherwise good article. Thank you. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 208.105.82.44 (talk) 18:55, 12 September 2008 (UTC)

The "World Crisis" sub-section

Is there anything that can be done about it? I think it is poorly written and sourced. I've tried to work at it a bit. Unlike this one, the other subsections of "Recurrent Themes" uniformly give a very brief description/synopsis and then let JK expound on it. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 65.88.88.126 (talk) 23:52, 10 September 2008 (UTC)

If I may add here, there is also precious little in the "Later Years" section about the dialogues/friendship with D. Bohm. Considering how important the relationship was to both men, and all the material that was produced from their encounters, I think this is a pretty big omission. In the criticism section their falling-out is mentioned without any explanation. Apparently Bohm was very disappointed over the Sloss revelations and Krishnamurti was disappointed that Bohm could not apply the teaching. Also no mention is made of their later reconciliation, which never brought their relationship to the level it was previously. Thank you. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 208.105.82.44 (talk) 19:08, 12 September 2008 (UTC)

I for one appreciate your contribution about Bohm, but there's still the question of the "world crisis" section. Imo, the way it's presented is out of sync with the rest of the article.—Preceding unsigned comment added by 65.88.88.127 (talk • contribs)

Sloppy Editing

When changing/removing items in the article please consider the possible linkages, and how the article as a whole is affected. This is a long article with many sections and links both internal and external, and a certain style of presentation. Be thorough and take care your edits do not leave "orphan" (ie dead) or incoherent links and items! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 216.194.21.227 (talk) 15:39, 22 May 2009 (UTC)

Anonymous Reverts Regarding Theosophy

Consensus was reached months ago regarding the inclusion of certain material which was slanting the article towards a theosophical perspective by an anonymous user, now apparently editing under a new IP number. The quote, which references the world teacher and the "Christ" was footnoted rather than being included in the main article. Sach.b (talk) 11:53, 13 April 2009 (UTC)

i don't see any slant in a clarification made by krishnamurti, that depends on your pov. as far as i can see that the material has been part of the article for a long time and more than a year. trying to hide it in a footnote does not achieve anything. you are probably mistaking this for something else.

Right, it depends upon whether you have a theosophical agenda, which is why the remark was originally removed from the main article after a protracted edit war. Also, you are not supposed to go ahead and revert again before engaging in a discussion and you need to sign your replies. Sach.b (talk) 12:35, 13 April 2009 (UTC)

you are talking to the wrong person. i see that the consensus was in favor of keeping this clarification looking back two years. we also have no way to know whether krishnamurti had a theosophical agenda or not. that is again a pov. as long as the article is well sourced it can stay and it provides a good clarification to the modern k admirers who try to disown parts of history they dislike. that is the reason i reverted your footnote since you seemed to want to bury facts.

122.110.40.48 (talk) 07:10, 14 April 2009 (UTC)

Quote in "Break With The Past" Section

"You must become liberated not because of me but in spite of me." [Krishnamurti speaking at the annual Order of the Star Camp, Eerde (Ommen), Holland, June 30, 1927].[56]

My objections to the above: 1) It sticks out like a sore thumb and looks awkward. 2) It sounds Messianic and should be placed in context. The fact that it is from a 1927 Star camp and not the 1929 camp causes a break in continuity with the other material. 1929 is when he made the official break. 3) There's already enough (too much?) material in this section. Even more quotes should probably be taken out. What is the reason for keeping it? Sach.b (talk) 15:59, 22 April 2009 (UTC)

Yep, I agree with most of what you said. Noticed that somebody else also removed it, but anon user 65 has restored it again. I have no objection to the quote provided it is placed in the right context. I don't mind people adding quotes provided the added material adds more clarity. This one looks like a koan with no clue of the context in which Krishnamurti made this statement. 207.233.110.67 (talk) 04:25, 24 April 2009 (UTC)

Dates

There is continuing confusion regarding the birth date as yet another user has changed the date of birth. As explained in his official bio and it appears as a footnote in the article, the birth date according to the western calendar is May 12. Since this is the dating scheme followed by the article I think it should stay at that. In the brahmin calendar it was still the previous day (which in brahmin terms was not in "May", on the "11", or in the year "1895"). Also, he died sometime in the early hours of February 17. According to the brahmin calendar that could be the previous day, what in western terms would be the 16th. For consistency's sake, I undid the user's birthdate edit. Any other info/comment is welcome. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 65.88.88.69 (talk) 19:14, 11 June 2009 (UTC)

UN

There is continuing dispute regarding Krishnamurti's talk at the UN, but it is not clear why. He was invited there by the Pacem in Terris chapter. As he says in the beginning of the talk, available both on video at Youtube and also on text as pointed at the relevant footnote, he was invited "...to speak on world peace beyond the 40th anniversary of the United Nations". At the end of the talk, the president of the Society presents him with the "1984 Peace Medal". The fact that the 1984 recipient of the Pacem in Terris Award is missing, maybe because Krishnamurti did not make an acceptance speech , and, as a previous editor noted, seems to ignore the presentation. The relevant portion starts at 6m58s of the video source posted. By the way, I don't understand why that reference was removed. The fact that he did not make an acceptance speech is not speculation. And if he did not formally accept the medal, he would not be in the listing of recipients. I ask that the "dubious" tag be removed. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 65.88.88.126 (talk) 18:11, 16 July 2009 (UTC)

No responses yet, I see. Even if two "editors" were really quick to remove info+relevant links (Goethean and The Ringess) - and assign inappropriate tags (Goethean). The "dubious" tag is not justified, as user 216.194.22.57 inserted a PRIMARY source (video) of the event. A tag of "incomplete" or "non-specific" would be more appropriate, but only if you're lazy or can't be bothered with the article. If you actually care enough to edit, go through the offered source and see if it is valid, see if it can be presented better, don't take a blunt axe to it. This also goes for the removal of the Pacem in Terris link - 5 seconds of searching would have sufficed to recognize that the page does exist, another 5 to link it properly. The reason there was given as "removal of external link". And that is supposed to mean what? As for the award page, this is not offered as a citation (ie proof/source) but as information of what this award is about. There is no need of further proof when the verbatim transcript (linked in the footnote) contains all the relevant info, to say nothing of the later added video.

I am reinstating user's 216.194.22.57 edit with more specific info. I am also removing the unjustified tags. I'd like to say that I don't care at all for the UN info. I didn't put it there, and imo it is no more relevant than any other talk JK gave. Its appearance in the article strikes me as trying to portray the subject as something he said he abhorred - a celebrity or a VIP, an "achiever" to be honored, and it diminishes his message and the article by using up valuable real estate. But if it is to be removed, let it be removed because it is superfluous, not because it is false.

I wish Goethean and TheRingess all the best with their "editing" efforts elsewhere. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 65.88.88.126 (talk) 15:40, 17 July 2009 (UTC)

I think you are wasting your time. It is clear to me that user TheRingess does not understand the tentative nature of the word "seem". Any reasonable person, after watching the video, could easily conclude that Krishnamurti indeed "seems" to want to have nothing to do with this medal, which he immediately puts on the table, leaves it there, and proceeds to the exit. I doubt that anybody would conclude that it "seems" that Krishnamurti accepts the medal. Also if I may add, if such tentative commentary is to be expunged from a footnote in the article, then a whole lot of the article itself, including the majority of footnotes, should be re-written. Don't expect people who just delete things for dubious reasons (rather than doing the hard work of editing) to fix that issue. These double standards are what made me give up on this article and Wikipedia as a whole. Thank you. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 208.105.82.44 (talk) 18:42, 17 July 2009 (UTC)

There is a multitude of problems with your comments, ranging from incivility to the use of primary materials which is specifically forbidden by Wikipedia policy. The entire UN episode is worded deceptively and should be removed. 208's thoughts on what JK "seems" to do in a Youtube video are not appropriate to this or any other Wikipedia article. I suggest that both of you familiarize yourself with basic Wikipedia policy and guidelines. — goethean ॐ 19:02, 17 July 2009 (UTC)

I don't see a problem with the sentence in the intro about K receiving the peace award, except that it is not quite accurate. According to the info in the Australian transcript the meeting took place on April 11, 1985 [or April 17 according to Mary Lutyen's biography of K], which does fall within the timeframe of the UN 40th anniversary celebrations (the UN organizational conference began on April 25, 1945), but at that time he was still 89, a month short of his 90th birthday. The anon interpretive comments in the footnote are not appropriate because they constitute OR, as Goethean stated, but I think it is fine to leave the link to the You Tube video as a primary source. WP does not forbid use of primary sources, but a primary source may be used only to make descriptive claims not interpretive claims. For what its worth (nothing), I think K put the medal on the table so he could shake hands. We could argue that ad infinitum and that is why such commentary is inappropriate. --Blainster (talk) 17:01, 18 July 2009 (UTC)

I think that the text is deceptive. By putting the text in the intro, it is implied that this was a major accomplishment of JK's. It was not. Saying that JK "spoke at the UN" implies that he spoke at an official UN event, without actually saying so. There is no citation verifying the text. Where are the UN records verifying this speech, this award, this organization? The citation for the text in the body of the article (#98) goes to krishnamurtiaustralia.org, which is not a reliable source. Google brings up very little or nothing which is not from Krishnamurti follower sites like krishnamurtiaustralia.org. The text should be immediately removed and should remain so until it can be written more accurately and reliable sources can be found to back up the claims. — goethean ॐ 18:59, 20 July 2009 (UTC)

Also, youtube videos which infringe on copyrights should not be linked to. — goethean ॐ 18:58, 20 July 2009 (UTC)

Google News search — goethean ॐ 19:04, 20 July 2009 (UTC)

Please. This is ridiculous. Is a news search on Google evidence that something did not happen? Why would anybody give credence to that when there's actual video of the event? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 216.194.21.170 (talk) 15:36, 28 July 2009 (UTC)

Wow. I didn't realize this would evolve like this. I linked the Youtube video as a primary source material, in order to give some clarity to the article claim. As was noted, primary sources are not only allowed by Wikipedia, they are encouraged (first-hand evidence etc etc). The video in question is NOT copyrighted, and further more it is LINKED rather than inserted, which weakens the false copyright claims even more.

Primary sources should be examined. If TheRingess and Goethean what bothered to do the simple editorial task (since they want to edit the article) they would have seen the evidence. This was at the UN, it was part of the 40th anniversary celebrations, the Pacem in Terris Society extended the invitation, other UN-related people were invited (mr. Miller and Ms Barrs), and so on. Most of this is in the introduction.

I also added the commentary because I thought it seemed JK just ignored the medal. It is customary to give a short speech of acceptance, or at least acknowledge the honor. He just left. I thought my comment was descriptive rather than interpretative, and as noted, purposefully tentative in the description. As another user has written, there's plenty of commentary in the article that seems much more interpretative than my comment. If it's gonna make everybody cry murder though, might as well leave it out. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 216.194.21.170 (talk) 15:27, 28 July 2009 (UTC)

Krishnamurti and the perennial philosophy

According to the article, "there is no organizational or other entity based on his philosophy, whose progress can be measured [to show his impact on the world]." What weasel-worded nonsense.

Although Krishnamurti was opposed to establishing a rigid, hierarchical church or philosophical academy, every enlightened (or almost-enlightened) person advocates the same philosophy, the same underlying truth accessible to anyone, just using their own words to describe that which is indescribable.

Instead of evaluating Krishnamurti, Tolle, Ramana, Mahesh, Gangaji, Chopra, etc. by intellectual comparing and contrasting, which uses the very mechanism of thinking that they all agree is misleading, observe how they all say the same thing, using their slightly differing forms of language.

Then, when you are ready for the same experience of unbounded, eternal bliss that they all describe, look around and find the path that works best for you to evolve in the direction they have indicated: beyond thought. Transcend thought, starting from where you are, mired in the illusory basis of thought, to discover the obvious and underlying pure consciousness, pure being, which is the source of all creativity, ethics, and intelligence. Krishnamurti wanted all humans to be free; from our side, we must find a path. When we arrive at the goal, we will realize that the path was an illusion. You will agree with all of them, but in your own words: it's so obvious, so simple, to be fulfilled. David spector (talk) 20:18, 12 October 2009 (UTC)

From the header box: "This is not a forum for general discussion about the article's subject". Also, if you check out the archives, you'll see there's been plenty of back and forth about the "Influence" section and more specifically the opening paragraph. The consensus has been that the paragraph tackles a difficult subject as well as can be expected. I think so, too.

I also agree with several people who have suggested a reconfig of the "influence" and "criticism" sections, maybe by moving the info into the bio at the appropriate time periods. I also suggest the creation of a new section at the bio's end [maybe called "Post-Mortem"?! :) let's keep it high-brow], that would include influence, criticism and other worthy subject matter that happened after K's death and therefore can't be included in the bio proper. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 216.194.22.51 (talk) 15:30, 15 October 2009 (UTC)

Well go for it then. "Post Mortem" would be an accurate section title as you describe it, but it may be TOO high-brow. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 65.88.88.126 (talk) 14:25, 16 October 2009 (UTC)

Cool, I'll try to conjure up another heading. Was looking at the influence section again and lots of it looks like publicity for various new age VIPs, like "Gee I knew/influenced by Krishnamurti!!". Bah!! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 216.194.21.156 (talk) 15:00, 19 October 2009 (UTC)

Wronly Sourced World Crisis Quote

The following quote:

"The present crisis is different because we are dealing not with money, not with tangible things but with ideas. The crisis is in the field of thought, of ideas, of intellect. Before, evil was recognized as evil, murder was recognized as murder, but now murder is a means to achieve a noble result. You justify the wrong means through the intellect. When intellect has the upper hand in human life, it brings an unprecedented crisis. The other cause of this unprecedented crisis is the extraordinary importance man is giving to sensate values - to property, to name, to caste, to country.”

was wronlgy sourced in "Letters to the Schools", KFI, Madras, 1981, page 77. I looked at the book, copyright KFT, published by KFI, printed by The Vasanta Press (reprint of November 1983). The above quote DOES NOT EXIST in this page. The page is part of Letter #25 (pages 76-78). It starts as follows:

"Why are we being educated? Perhaps you never ask this question, but if you do, what is your response to it?"

NOWHERE in this letter are there any references to the world crisis or any crisis. I looked at pages 70-79. Also all pages that end in 7. Nothing either. The source is incorrect, and the person who keeps inserting it is vandalizing the article. A VERY SIMILAR quote does exist in the book "First and Last Freedom", in the Questions and Answers Section, as part of K's answer to Question #1. I inserted the correct quote and the correct source. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 65.88.88.127 (talk) 16:19, 29 December 2009 (UTC)

Please look at the source mentioned. It is the edition printed in 1981, not 1983 that you refer to. Yes, the quote about the importance to sensate values is very much there. The page number could be different in your edition. Which is why I had asked you to insert related text instead of deleting this sentence. K was pointing out the dangers of living by sensate values to his school children. I am reinserting this text.

123.208.66.88 (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 21:03, 29 December 2009 (UTC).

There was only ONE KFI Madras 1981 edition. The 1983 reprint is just that, an exact reprint. The quote does not exist in that book, period. You are insering unsourced material, and you should stop. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 96.232.207.163 (talk) 15:36, 30 December 2009 (UTC)

To, add, the whole text of that book (ie the letters that make it up and a short intro by K) are here Letters to the Schools. The letter that takes page 77 in the Madras 1981 edition is the September 1, 1979 (letter #25 in the book). There was another edition, the 2nd edition 1981, printed in the Netherlands, that re-arranges the letters so that the June 15th letter is included in pages 76-78. But it doesn't matter because the quote doesn't exist in the second edition either. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 96.232.207.163 (talk) 16:16, 30 December 2009 (UTC)

Since you refer to the First and Last Freedom as having the "original quote" whatever that means, here is some information from the official online text repository. The quote can be found in that book and reads as follows. "There are other causes also which indicate an unprecedented crisis. One of them is the extraordinary importance man is going to sensate values, to property, to name, to caste and country...". It is silly to remove sourced material from the article simply because you could not locate it it your copy.

120.155.19.4 (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 08:00, 4 January 2010 (UTC).

I didn't find it because it's not there. You can do a simple search on the page I linked above, with the complete text of the Madras 1981 edition. There's no such quote in the letters. There are quotes about sensate values in the original source, The First And Last Freedom. This source is original, because this is when the true quote as now provided in the article FIRST appeared. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 65.88.88.126 (talk) 17:36, 4 January 2010 (UTC)

If you have found the quote in The First and Last Freedom good for you. Why do you keep deleting it then?

120.156.25.137 (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 22:38, 4 January 2010 (UTC).

No, I'm just deleting the false source you keep re-inserting, and I'm also inserting the proper quote. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 65.88.88.127 (talk) 21:13, 5 January 2010 (UTC)

As mentioned earlier, you can verify the quote at the official web site, jkrishnamurti.org. It is found in First and Last Freedom so it must be in your copy unless you have an illegal version.

120.155.26.55 (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 21:30, 5 January 2010 (UTC).

Why do I need to do that? I'm not the one insisting that the quote is in "Letters to Schools" page 77. That's you. The correct source and quote (from First and Last Freedom) I've re-inserted a number of times. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 65.88.88.127 (talk) 21:42, 5 January 2010 (UTC)

I did not insert the quote, it was already there. You deleted stating it did not exist and was not a valid quote which was wrong. I pointed out that the quote also exists in the First and Last Freedom which was the book you had. I was ok if you add your material and change the reference if needed leaving the original quote intact. 120.155.145.38 (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 22:35, 5 January 2010 (UTC).

It doesn't "also exist" in the First and Last Freedom, that's where it came from. And it was changed. I restored the proper source and quote, that's all. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 65.88.88.127 (talk) 22:43, 5 January 2010 (UTC)

It certainly exists in The First and Last Freedom. Anyone can verify by searching for it at the official web site as I mentioned earlier. Unless you have not looked at your copy carefully or don't know how to search. 120.152.199.87 (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 05:36, 6 January 2010 (UTC).

You didn't mention anything like that. You were saying that the quote (which was a bit mangled by the way) existed in the "Letters to Schools". It does not exist there. As I pointed out and will keep inserting, the correct source, and the correct quote is on "The First and Last Freedom", scattered through pages 145-147 (that's why I used ellipses) as part of K's answer to a question. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 65.88.88.127 (talk) 19:39, 6 January 2010 (UTC)

You certainly have trouble reading! See my comments above on Jan 4. Even the official web site can be searched and it comes back with The First and Last Freedom and the exact quote. You should be able to find it in your copy, otherwise you should check all your books to see if they are legal copies! If you correct the source to whatever book and page number, I don't have a problem. But if you simply delete a valid quote for no reason, rest assured I will reinsert.

120.156.51.12 (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 02:02, 7 January 2010 (UTC).