Talk:U. G. Krishnamurti

describing UG

i don't know that it is fitting to describe ug as a philosopher or speaker. i also dont think we should use other peoples' impressions/quotes in the first paragraph. perhaps we could just reference the 'natural state' as he called it. shall i change it?

also i would think this artical needs more direct quotes, also is there a link to the relevant works on wikisource?

Rajpalrajpal (talk)

~ —Preceding unsigned comment added by Rajpalrajpal (talk • contribs) 00:03, 29 May 2008 (UTC)

No. It's a biographical entry, not an exposition of UG's thought, which in any case is presented quite succintly, imo. No matter what UG was saying, we as editors have every right to categorize him with persons who did or concerned themselves with similar things. For the purpose of such categorisation, the content of his "non-philosophy philosophy" (how ironic - haha) is immaterial. He was a public speaker (did it for decades) and a self-styled philosopher even if he denied it. Secondly there are more than enough direct quotes. This is not a quote farm. There is a link to Wikiquotes by UG. Anyone can go over there and indulge all they like. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 65.88.88.126 (talk) 19:14, 29 May 2008 (UTC)

hi. i think its a misrepresentation. what you are saying is like saying that it is okay to give a tabloid representation to public figures. did he have a non-philosophy philosophy etc or was this the projection of those who wrote about him? likewise callng him a philosopher suggests he was talking from theoretical standpoint (e.g. like Kant) as opposed to talking from direct experience. i am concerned that the opening is giving the wrong idea. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Rajpalrajpal (talk • contribs) 23:03, 30 May 2008 (UTC)

We have no way of knowing whether he was talking from "direct experience". And as the editor above said, these matters are not the purview of a wikipedia entry. As was posted above, we do have a right to categorize the subject for the purposes of wikipedia. UG was concerned and spoke at length publicly about matters that a sizable number of "philosophers" (religious and secular) have discussed since the beginning. Therefore, a "philosopher". His particular philosophy has no bearing in the way he's categorized. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 155.212.121.243 (talk) 00:37, 1 June 2008 (UTC)

If I may, I'd like to add that the article makes clear the broad outlines of UG's thinking. I think that an average person can tell for themselves by reading the article, whether UG's characterization as "philosopher" is literal, or just an adequate (but not perfect) fit for descriptive purposes. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 155.212.121.243 (talk) 00:47, 1 June 2008 (UTC)

UG's personality

I think a few things should be added about UG's personality, info cited/sourced to people who knew him well. There must be objective ways to do this without direct quotes proclaiming what a great man or what a low scoundrel he was. For example, I read a blog entry from somebody who knew him for years, and this person was describing how during the last years of his life UG was becoming senile, repetitive and obsessed with Krishnamurti. Also, others describe him as posturing, generous, preening, gentle etc etc often in the same sentence. I know there are many places one can find this info on the net. I just think that there must be a neutral way to add some of that in this entry. I would say as part of the "Post-Calamity" section, since that's when most people started knowing him and that's when he really came up expressing his philosophy. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.105.155.141 (talk) 23:53, 9 May 2008 (UTC)

I suppose a short reference would be ok, but I see problems with the suggestion. It can easily degenerate into cheap psychoanalysis/personality analysis from a distance. Also it risks turning the article in an opinion and/or quote list. The reason UG has an entry is because of his latter-day philosophy, not because of his personality, which for a lot of people may come across as blunt and far from likable or charming. I don't know and cannot really determine to what degree his personality influenced his latter-day philosophy or vice-versa. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 65.88.88.130 (talk) 14:27, 10 May 2008 (UTC)

Removal of the Criticism section

I removed it, as it added nothing new or relevant. UG thought that people such as Osho were crooks. Osho disagreed, and thought of UG as a crook in so many words. Big deal. There is no use for criticism in a bio entry anyway. The entry is about UG as a person, not a semi-academic examination of whatever philisophy he was expounding (if any) - except as ancillary to his personality and life. There's no need about a "balanced" entry that has to include blame, praise, and everything in between. Because every editor has a different sense of balance. It also doesn't matter whether or not he was lifting wholesale from Jiddu K. This is about what UG did and said, and he never claimed authorship, originality or ownership. These are attributes others attach to him or subtract from him. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 65.88.88.173 (talk) 17:52, 4 May 2008 (UTC)

Disagree. I restored the criticism section and it is also found on many bio entries. It is wishful thinking to somehow imply that U.G. was above criticism, either regarding his life or his teachings. It may not matter to you, but lifting wholesale from other sources is called 'plagarism'. That he never claimed ownership might have very well been a ploy to avoid lawsuits. For a guy who did nothing but criticise others, I am sure he could withstand a few sentences of criticism.

71.103.107.131 (talk) 19:03, 4 May 2008 (UTC)

Guess what, this is not a forum about your (or anyone's) like or dislike of UG. It's his bio entry. What his perceived faults or perceived "greatness" and importance was, it's up to the readers to decide. The article is already overlong and full of POV. Now you add your own POV - in case I haven't made it clear, any notion of "balance" is a POV. Whatever you think about "ploys" and plagiarism are also POV and don't justify adding the section. The article does give some info about what UG was about. You just have to take him or leave him. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 65.88.88.173 (talk) 19:18, 4 May 2008 (UTC)

Bull. I was the one who added the criticism section. If you think this article is a bio entry, I have a bridge to sell you. Most of the article is about U.G's meetings with philospohers (Ramana and JK) and his views and what he thought of their teachings. Hardly a bio entry. U.G's own 'experience' was compared to J.K's description no less! You have every right to be a U.G devotee and dislike any criticism, but you must confine yourself to your own web site in that case. Readers can decide for themselves which is why counterpoints are necessary. Censorship is dead. Wake up and smell the coffee. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 207.233.110.66 (talk) 01:30, 8 May 2008 (UTC)

Ofcourse it's his bio entry. The reason a lot of it covers his meetings with others is because that's what he did, for decades. The reason it covers his impressions of them is because that's what preoccupied him and led him to formulate whatever it is he came up with. The article (a work in progress) represents his so-called "philosophy" without giving it any merit or demerit. The reason his "philosophy" is represented is because it is the only reason for this bio entry. The article also represents some of what is known to be the facts of his life, again without any judgement, pro or con, about said facts or the person of UG himself. It may come as a surprise to you, but readers do have the ability, if they care enough to research it, to form their own opinion about whether he was a saint, an idiot, argumentative, a con man etc etc without your "guidance". You are the one who wants to present opinions about him. Do it in YOUR website. The "criticism" section is as irrelevant as a "praise" or an "influence" section. It blows, and it goes. BTW, there's no "censorship", as you well know. Just removal of your and others' POV that's masquearading as relevant info. Also not censorship: removal of positive or negative (in your case) opinion of the subject that is camouflaged as supposedly "interesting" criticism of the subject by others. Finally I don't understand your problem with UG's quote about his state during JK's speech. Are you denying he made the quote? Are you saying that is irrelevant to the subject matter? Because these are the things that matter. Not its veracity, nor your opinion of it. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 65.88.88.214 (talk) 17:26, 8 May 2008 (UTC)

The Link in Notes No. 9

It does not work anymore, don't know why. The book I've quoted from is still online, this biography written by Mahesh Bhatt [1].

Austerlitz -- 88.75.89.218 (talk) 13:38, 12 February 2008 (UTC)

Here is the text of the letter Krishnamurti left before leaving the Ramakrishna Mission: "7 September '63

My Dear Swamiji,

I have just been told by Maharaj that the eye operation has been a success and that you are well on your way to complete recovery, and that you will be returning to the Center in a week or so. This is very good news. And we are all looking forward to seeing you back at the Center ere long.

I would like to pay you a visit, but certainly not if this will in any way cause strain to you. If it isn't too much of a strain, it would give me great pleasure to see you at the Hospital, and you may be assured that it will be a very short one.

I wish to God I knew what hidden hand led me to the Center. When you suggested helping you out with some kind of editing work, I did not for a moment hesitate to fall in with your kind suggestion. What I did not know was that I would be having the most Blessed Moments of my life here at the Center. It is needless to add that it has been a great privilege to have associated myself with you, and I feel greatly refreshed both in mind and body.

That, however, apart, my continued stay here at the Center and the necessary atmosphere for alert and strenuous discernment in meditation have helped me tremendously. The hidden agony of my life which no human being could understand has dissolved itself into thin air, as it were, and this has awakened me to what may loosely be called a kind of spiritual sleepwalking. I have pulled myself out from what looked like the edge of an abyss.

You know that there are very rare occasions in the lives of most of us when we have brief experiences of existing beyond time. I too have had several such moments. But this has been more than fleeting and has indeed become an abiding certainty. Nevertheless the strains and stresses of adjusting myself to a whole new way of life resulted in a peculiar state of mind hedged with some kind of indolence, maybe a form of conceit, which only meant greater and greater sorrow but left with a kind of empty expectancy. I may have achieved a certain calmness, but that calmness was of death-producing languor. But I have always felt and still feel that one has to haul oneself out of one's own swamps by one's own bootstraps.

However, all my strenuous and directed attention hasn't helped me much to break the vicious circle. Well, now, through the touch of the inscrutable Divine power of Sri Ramakrishna, I have been blessed beyond words with the clarity of perception. And this calmness is a calmness without a trace of languor or contentment or watchful expectancy but one of completeness and wholeness. Need I say that when I burst forth into the world—the joy which overflows the heart is indeed bursting forth—I will be a new man?

With deep and affectionate regards,

Ever yours,

U.G. Krishnamurti" source [2], taken from the chapter Adrift in London.

Austerlitz -- 88.75.72.132 (talk) 14:30, 14 February 2008 (UTC)

Maybe we can cite part of the letter on the mainpage?

I have been editing the page for the past couple of weeks, mainly removing some flowery and subjective language more suitable to hagiographies. The article, long as it is, is incomplete ofcourse and far from inclusive, but that's a different apple. I don't object to the inclusion of the letter if you feel it necessary; however, you can just enter that UG was often inconsistent and contradictory, and sometimes damn near illogical, like everybody else. But even that would overlook the fact that the entry about his "philosophy" in the article is way too much skewered to the way UG presented himself to the world after age 49. That is, before the 1970s, nobody was calling UG the "anti-guru" etc etc. At least, not that I'm aware of. I don't think that the article articulates properly how his "philosophy" evolved from point A to point B, although such effort is attempted. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 65.88.88.214 (talk) 23:00, 14 February 2008 (UTC)

I wanted to point out what U.G. has said about the influence Ramakrishna has had on him, given the fact that there already is a quotation referring to Ramana Maharishi. I've always confused those two with one another; maybe because both of them are said to be worshippers of Divine Mother. Rereading the text given by Mahesh Bhatt, I noticed that there is a question mark, lacking in the small edition I had made about U.G.'s leaving the Ramakrishna Mission. I ought to change the text therefore, I have not done until now. Most probably it is not necessary to insert the complete text of his letter, I am not sure about that.

Austerlitz -- 88.72.29.72 (talk) 09:46, 28 February 2008 (UTC)

P.S. Now the link to note No.9 is okay again. Thank's.

Austerlitz -- 88.72.29.72 (talk) 09:50, 28 February 2008 (UTC)

Dispute on Godman's account

I am not here to defend U.G. I will not remove any critique about what his ideas can represent as a guru or philosopher, as the ones that are currently present at the article. ~

But the Godman's particular reference is totally out of context and misleading in the way it is being used. The fact that one (respectable) man has found strange, by his own experience, the testimonial of the article's subject is far from the necessity of we referencing in the article that "scholars are questioning this man's account". This is totally out of proportion. This things happen a lot and there can be no space for this kind of abuse of a source concerning a biography article.

The fact is that Godman was not present and there is nothing to suggest that his remark is nothing more than a personal opinion. Him being a scholar has got nothing to do with this incident, as in setting a counter-point for what happened. Don't try to make him more to be than what he himself could assume. Maziotis (talk) 01:00, 16 June 2008 (UTC)

Agreed. The person who keeps vandalizing the page does not understand. It is clear from the text that the incidents are from UG's standpoint ("According to UG", "UG related", "Maharshi purportedly said" etc etc). It doesn't matter whether UG's accounts are truthful or not. What matters is that they were instrumental (or UG claimed they were instrumental - same difference) in the development of his philosophy. Whether others dispute the meetings is irrelevant. The fact remains that UG didn't care (or said he didn't care - same difference) for any of these so-called "teachers". His account of the meetings is all part and parcel of his personality and his philosophy. As others have said, his philosophy is the reason for the entry. This continuing vandalism smells like an attempt of introducing a "criticism" section as discussed above. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 64.61.178.170 (talk) 08:03, 16 June 2008 (UTC)

The fact is that even the reference is distorted. At best, we could write "The author Godman has raised questions concerning the veracity of UG's testimonial...". And this is inadmissible for an encyclopedic biography. You can raise questions concerning ideas, but this concerns the testimonial of an event, in which he was not even present. It's to vague, when the penalty might be calling someone a liar.

When it comes to suggest that someone made a mistake in reporting an event, either you have proofs that someone lied, or you present several testimonials of the people who were there (people remember things in different ways), or you have to drop the whole thing. I can't understand how this is not crystal clear for anybody.Maziotis (talk) 13:29, 16 June 2008 (UTC)

Even a bio entry does not prevent differences about events from being mentioned. The bio aspect is simply the fact that U.G met Ramana. Nothing more. But this article goes far beyond that. Here we are presenting U.G's accounts, his interpretations of what it meant to him, how it affected his thinking, his life etc etc. David Godman is NOT anybody. He is a reputed author and scholar on Ramana and he has raised serious doubts about some of the things Ramana had supposedly said according to U.G. Same regarding his meeting with Papaji. Not mentioning these doubts raised by Godman gives readers the wrong information that U.G's accounts have been accepted in toto by all parties concerned. That would make it a pure propaganda article, under the guise of a bio entry. Adding the sentence does NOT mean it is a criticism of U.G or that he lied. May be even this is too much for U.G. devotees to stomach.

It might be of help to see other Wiki articles such as Martin Luther King or even J.Krishnamurti. In both cases, questions were raised well after their death and they had no way to defend themselves. Nevertheless, the allegations of plagarism and romantic affair have been mentioned in both articles. It hardly means they are being held guilty, but nothing is allowed to be brushed under the carpet. It only makes the articles richer. And it is a must under Wiki guidelines.

122.110.94.143 (talk) 02:29, 17 June 2008 (UTC)

To me, all that would make sense if only Godman were there! It would be a different person giving his testimonial on what happen. In that case, it wouldn't even matter if later we were to discover that there was an interest in Godman to lie, because he could nevertheless be telling the truth. But he wasn't there. And he isn't giving his critique as a scholar about an U. G.'s idea.

Please understand that for me this is not a question of "not agreeing with Godman" As far as I am aware, I believe I am defending Godman's position aswell. I'm really not sure Godman would agree with you using his reference the way you did. That's why I believe it is distorted. Who knows... maybe those two gurus were having a "day off" and Godman would agree with that thesis. This possibility would be in total clash with "question being raised about the events...". As it is, this is very misleading.

I have never seen anything like this in any article.Maziotis (talk) 12:00, 17 June 2008 (UTC)

You are stuck up on the notion that Godman or somebody had to be there. Well, this is not necessary for objective research. I have given examples of other pages on MLK and JK to name just two. They are far better articles by any measure (number of hits, being quoted etc). Your hypothesis is false since to begin with U.G. published his accounts after Ramana's death. So, by your logic, anybody who publishes after a person's death should be protected from any differing opinion from any scholar in the future!! Anyway, I am quite disgusted with the propaganda tone of the entire article and the way a couple of you dismiss any other reader's suggestion whether it be on UG as a philosopher, or havig a criticism section etc as can be seen from this discussion page. You can reproduce anything U.G says as gospel truth! You have made sure by your narrow bigotry that you can protect UG from any other point of view. Well, let us see how long it lasts.

58.111.30.239 (talk) 04:47, 18 June 2008 (UTC)

Are you only reading the first sentences of my responses?

Look, let's get something straight. I would have no problem if Godman were to say, after UG had die, that he was a stupid, liar and hyporcrite who said this, that and that. I would have no problem in having something referenced in the article like that, given the proper relevance to that and the credible source. I have no problem to criticism to UG and pay attetion to what I am doing in the article. I am not a UG devoteee who rfemoves any negative remark of him in the article and, unlike what you say, you can find it.

The problem is that the reference YOU (not Godman's) made, or that you keep adding,is distorted. It references a questionning of an envent that took place from the point of view of someone who wasn't there. It is original research for which you cannot find relevance to include in the article.

The funny thing is that you keep saying that Godman was a scholar on Ramana and Papji, but the misunderstanding here may be related to the fact that he wasn't a scholar on UG, or simply that he didn't know him personally. He said that he found his testimonial to concer people out of character, when the problem may be that he was taking what UG said in the literal sense. It's a perfect human mistake to consider that has got nothing to do with Godman's curriculum. Maziotis (talk) 13:39, 18 June 2008 (UTC)

Even if Godman was a "scholar" (haha) of/on UG, I don't see why he should be mentioned in the article. It's an encyclopedic entry, not a "scholarly", "repected" (hilarious) analysis. It's not an exposition of UG's theories that would necessitate critical enquiry. Do you want to know - encyclopedically, IN BRIEF - who UG was and what he said? Read the article. Do you want to know whether he was - this, that or the other? This is not the place. Look elsewhere and exercise your judgement.

The notion that JK and MLK "are far better articles by any measure" because of "number of hits, being quoted etc" is childish. Popularity is no measure of "betterness", especially on the internet. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 65.88.88.200 (talk) 15:59, 18 June 2008 (UTC)

Please keep in mind that my argument wasn't that "Godman should not be included because he is not a scholar on UG". I was merely pointing out to the fact that there may have been a misunderstanding (that we as an encyclopedia are not in place of solving) due to the fact that this man (Godman) wasn't acquaintance with UG.

Just because in an argument I claim that being a scholar is not relevant in a particular issue doesen't mean that I am either dismissing scholarship as a whole or defending it.Maziotis (talk) 20:04, 18 June 2008 (UTC)

I have no argument with that. But, to sidetrack a bit, if one is presented as a "scholar" of anything, they have to be prepared for more than casual scrutiny. They are implied "authorities" of some kind - at least for people who believe in, or need authorities. In my book they have to constantly and continuously earn the dubious distinction. Sure, somebody may have studied a subject in minute detail, and in all probability should therefore be able to form a better informed opinion. But it is STILL an opinion, no matter how well-informed or "respected" the person is. Also note I said "in all probability". —Preceding unsigned comment added by 65.88.88.46 (talk) 22:52, 18 June 2008 (UTC)

And who said that the J Krishnamurti and King articles are good articles? They're overlong, bloated, and full of opinions, commentary, and original research. I couldn't care less how "respected" anyone is in any field since this is about a simple thing. The article is not about Godman's or anybody else's opinions or knowledge of what might have happened, and your believing it relevant. It's about what opinions UG held and his bio leading to them - not whether he was truthful, correct or anything else. Everything else definitely should be brushed under the nearest carpet. Go look under it on your own time. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 216.194.1.55 (talk) 15:03, 17 June 2008 (UTC)

It seems that some people want to present differing opinions about UG, maybe because he insulted their favorite gurus or what not. As I have remarked previously this is not an analysis where pro and con arguments have to be presented. The article presents UG's ideas utilizing the person most suitable (UG himself). In order for the reader to gain an understanding of how UG arrived, or said he arrived, at this philosophy, certain pertinent supposedly biographical details are also presented, along with the basic bio generalities of places, dates etc etc. The language used in the article is neutral, and it neither endorses nor questions. There are plenty other forums to engage in critical discussion. This is not it. This is just a non-opinionated presentation. If you don't like UG, well, tough. Go somewhere else to vent. Same goes if you're a UG fanboy or girl and think the article engages in too much fence-sitting. Go worship elsewhere. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 65.88.88.126 (talk) 13:45, 16 June 2008 (UTC)

@Maziotis

Maybe that all his books are online, I don't know. Put them there, too.

• The Courage to Stand Alone, Conversations with U.G. Krishnamurti, Amsterdam, September 1982, Transcribed and Edited by Ellen Chrystal, Original tapes produced and edited by Henk Schonewille

like I put this one.

Austerlitz -- 88.72.30.86 (talk) 17:51, 20 June 2008 (UTC)

Since a number of his books, including the one you're refering to, appear in Wikisource verbatim, I don't understand what is all the fuss about?? Btw, I invite any of you to help clean up this book on Wikisource as per the Wikipedia guidelines: [[3]]. Also needs to be added verbatim: "The Natural State". Thank you. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.105.155.141 (talk) 22:37, 20 June 2008 (UTC)

You can find all his books at this website: http://www.well.com/user/jct/

This is from where you linked "courage to stand alone". Wether you believe this is the best book, or whatever, there is no reason to discriminate one in relation to the others. Either link most proeminent books on this site, or at least several, or point to this website (which is already done in the external links section). I think this is common knowledge. It was not my intention to be disruptive. Maziotis (talk) 00:34, 21 June 2008 (UTC)