Talk:Jiddu Krishnamurti/Archive 3

Brahmin or Hindu Argument
Of course it should be the more specific "Brahmin." Sach.b (talk) 21:27, 31 December 2009 (UTC)

Re-arranging of text, consolidating "Influence" and "Criticism" into "Afterword"
After several editors in the past asked for better presentation, I consolidated the majority of the "Influence" and "Criticism" sections into the new section "Afterword", positioned right after the Biography. Very few things have been added, mostly in footnotes. Very few things have been removed, and only for purposes of readability. I have moved several items that were not directly related to K into footnotes, in the sections that make chronological sense. These are mostly some of the praises and criticisms of other people towards K that are just so many more opinions. SOME of the pro and con items have been left in the text, either because they were (I think) more original or more serious, and also to show some of the diversity of responses to K. Any feedback is appreciated.

Unfortunately you have gutted the sections. Krishnamurti's influence cannot be limited to after his death! His influence was much wider during his life time. And you have removed key aspects of his influence in India, especially among the religious figures. I have restored them.

120.156.150.7 (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 08:38, 20 December 2009 (UTC).


 * I think the new setup is kinda neat. Definitely more readable. I don't think the sections were "gutted". As for the various religious "teachers" who gave "praise" I couldn't give a hoot. Like Einstein said, the praise of 100 professors can't prove me right, the diligence of 1 professor can prove me wrong. Or words to that effect. BTW, I think the article makes clear throughout that Krishnamurti was quite influential indeed. Anyway, I prefer the new setup. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 216.194.21.148 (talk) 15:30, 20 December 2009 (UTC)


 * Imo, people confuse K's fame and the interest he attracted, with influence. His goal, stated in the dissolution speech in 1929 and reaffirmed in the core of the teaching in 1980, was to set people "completely free". Such people would "live and breathe" the teaching. That, according to him is what is needed to set the world right. Obviously it didn't happen, he said so himself - and I'll take his assesment, not yours. The world arguably became a worse place during his lifetime, and since his death. So ok, he was famous and people still read his books, discuss the teachings etc etc. So what. That's like toying with something, it's not doing it. That's not influence. Then you have people like you who need to be told that K was a cool guy by Maharshi or Dalai Lama or Bohm or whoever before they get involved. As if Maharshi "praising" him means anything. This goes for those people who similarly wait for his critics. I would kindly suggest reading the Dissolution Speech. It's a nice piece, and it's about you. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 65.88.88.126 (talk) 14:49, 21 December 2009 (UTC)

You are the one who is confused about edits. First learn to put aside your POV and pretending that you have somehow a better grasp of what he said than others. This is an article on K, not an argument about his teachings or what he wanted. Everybody understands what he said about nobody living the teachings. That is not the issue. So long as his teachings are referenced by other religious figures, so long as people openly state that they have been influenced by K, it must be recorded as his influence. Otherwise the article is poorer and incomplete. Don't get into personal attacks. Thank you.

123.208.43.19 (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 21:24, 29 December 2009 (UTC).


 * I like the idea of the afterword section. Sach.b (talk)  —Preceding undated comment added 00:12, 31 December 2009 (UTC).


 * User 123.x.x.x misunderstands. The whole idea of an "Influence" section is subjective. A 3rd party (some Wikipedia editors) are making a judgement on whether some other people were "influenced" by yet another party. In the light of K's statement, just because somebody CLAIMED was influenced by K does not make it so. It's like saying "I'm influenced by Picasso". Does the opinion of another artist add or take anything away from Picasso's art? Should it be included in an article on Picasso? Especially when the claim underlies a very subjective understanding of Picasso's art? I think the whole Maharshi and other "teachers" quote is useless. OK, so Maharshi liked him. How does this advance our understanding of K? Because that's what a bio article is about. These quotes by the "spiritual leaders" add nothing new or interesting. Unless you're their follower and you need this to affirm your own opinion of K. No, I don't think they're encyclopedic at all. They're a pat in the back for insecure readers. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 65.88.88.69 (talk) 20:36, 31 December 2009 (UTC)


 * May I also suggest that such instances of "praise" be moved to footnotes, like some other claims of "influence" have been. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 65.88.88.69 (talk) 20:42, 31 December 2009 (UTC)


 * They should be mentioned if the influenced parties are people of some stature and it can be documented, especially people such as Bohm and Indira Gandhi. Its a factual article and not a philosophical treatise. It has nothing do do with giving anyone a pat on the back, it is something that can be documented.Sach.b (talk) 21:22, 31 December 2009 (UTC)


 * Obviously it is a fact that some people claimed to have been influenced by K. My disagreement is whether such claims should be included in K's bio entry - or at least in the main body. Perhaps in matters of science or craftsmanship an objective show of influence can be demonstrated and resulting scholarship or craft can be objectively pointed out, but imo, not here, or in other matters of artistic or philosophical interpretation.
 * Also, I apologize if I offended anybody with improper language. I was trying to make a point more forcefully than I should have. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 65.88.88.127 (talk) 21:44, 31 December 2009 (UTC)


 * Theres no offense taken. But for example Bohm was a scientist and Gandhi a politician. The influence can be documented and also shows that K was taken seriously by people who were themselves influential in their own fields. There does not have to be hesitation to edit according to conventional standards since this is an informational article.  Sach.b (talk) 22:05, 31 December 2009 (UTC)


 * Well Bohm and Gandhi is not the problem, imo. Neither is Huxley or Sloss or Rajagopal or Williams. These were people who interacted with K in a more involved or influential level. As were Sheldrake, or the respected scholars Upadhyaya and Ruhola, all of whose discussions with K were deemed important enough to publish. But what value, in your opinion, does the "praise" of some "leader" add to the article? Imo, these were less than footnotes in K's life. Affording them a footnote in the article is already too much, though I can live with it. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 65.88.88.126 (talk) 16:21, 2 January 2010 (UTC)


 * Although I like the idea of the afterword, I don't like the last three paragraphs at all and think they should be redone. In a nutshell, with the exception of the Dalai Lama, the people mentioned in the third to the last paragraph are not all that notable. Who really cares if they were influenced by K or not?   Earlier in the article where the other gurus are mentioned, I would consider footnoting them as they are probably not in the same ballpark as K. The Dalai Lama might be.  Are we talking about the same passages?  Sach.b (talk) 01:05, 3 January 2010 (UTC)


 * There is nothing wrong with the last 3 paragraphs, as they emphasize in different ways, the main point of his public pronouncements. There's no path, there can be no successor, nobody can claim to have understood and therefore be influenced unless they live it, etc etc. It is important to emphasize this as there are always people ready to assume the mantle of succession in some form or other. I think the three paragraphs show a good range of reaction to K and a good range of claims of supposed influence. It has nothing, imo, to do with people being in ths same ballpark as K. This is a false approach. Who defines such ballpark? And by what criteria? This is a not a "celebrity"-type vanity article. Although K was asked, and declined, to portray the Buddha in a Hollywood production in the 1920s - maybe this should be footnoted in the article! The text I dispute is earlier in the article, and concerns the "praise" of sundry religious figures. I don't think getting into the details of who that was deserves more than a footnote. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 96.232.208.74 (talk) 16:15, 3 January 2010 (UTC)
 * IMO mentioning the rock band and that Weir guy, whoever he is cheapens the article because they are relatively of minor import. I just think it ends the article on a weak note. I agree that the sundry religious figures should also be relegated to a footnote on similar grounds because of their importance to K (not very great) and also because they are not important figures in their own right except for the Dalai Lama. Maybe R. Maharshi has some importance, but his link to K seems rather weak.   I would add that the article itself should not take sides or try to exemplify the "No Path" thing.  Its a factual article and it does not suggest that there is a mantle of succession to talk about Bohm and Gandhi and the activities of the foundations.  The problem is that the article does not end up on a serious tone but sounds kind of pop-culturish. It does sound like a vanity article because of those references.  That's my honest opinion, for what its worth. Sach.b (talk) 18:35, 3 January 2010 (UTC)
 * It also mentions Bruce Lee and Barry Long (a crackpot) Barry Long does not belong in the paragraph beside the Dalai Lama.  If he's mentioned it should be as a new age guru or some such.There has to be some kind of discrimination made between these people instead of lumping them all together. Sach.b (talk) 18:43, 3 January 2010 (UTC)

I would tend to agree with Sach.b, except that the link of Maharshi to K is strong based on many articles through the years and being a religious leader in his own right no less than the Dalai Lama. User 65 does not seem to understand the term influence. If a leading scientist or physicist claims to have been influenced by Einstein or that his work is related then we certainly include those as being influenced by Einstein. On the other hand we also have the rock band, Weir, and Barry Long who don't add anything of substance and could be removed. I am surprised that Sach.b has tolerated them this far! On another note, the "no path" theory is just another POV. We can find many instances where K lays down the steps while proceeding with his enquiry. 'Before enquiring into the question of death, one must be totally free of fear', being an example.

120.155.19.4 (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 08:23, 4 January 2010 (UTC).


 * Where is the strong link with Maharshi? Which "articles" are you refering to? How did Maharshi affect K's life? In all the biographies of K I've read, there is scant mention of Maharshi. Secondly, the reference to Dalai Lama in that paragraph in the afterword is misleading, as he is the personification of mainstream Tibetan Buddhism which has nothing to do with a "pathless land" or with "immediate liberation". The "no path" is a theory?!?! How do you come to that?!?! That's practically ALL K was saying, and he kept repeating. Read the Dissolution Speech in its entirety, and 50 years later the Core Of the Teaching. Also practically ALL the speeches he made, all the books written by biographers and others who knew him. No quote taken out of context can contradict that. Also, as I refered to above, one can objectively follow scientific influence through citations of later work etc, unlike in cases such as K's. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 65.88.88.126 (talk) 15:25, 4 January 2010 (UTC)


 * Would you guys consider getting a user ID? I can't keep track of who is who.  Or place some kind of identifying signature at the end of your comment? Sach.b (talk) 22:34, 4 January 2010 (UTC)

The Maharishi and the Dalai Lama were mentioned as influential religious leaders and their regard for K's teachings. Rather than being stuck with the dissolution speech and the "no path" fixation that you have I suggest you read the whole of K's work. With a little bit of effort you should be able to find enough statements he made over decades ranging from a vegetarian diet to sitting still to a step by step process of enquiry. And there have been others who knew him personally and have written about these things. The quote I provided is not out of context. It is something he said almost every time he discussed the issue of death. Which must be a hundred times or more. You cannot impose your POV of no path absolutism in the article. The context in which things were said by K cannot be totally ignored. Incidentally Vernon never met K or heard him live. Should his biography not be used as a source since it is entirely based on secondary material? 120.156.14.199 (talk)

120.156.14.199 (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 23:09, 4 January 2010 (UTC).


 * Sure K said a whole lot of things about a whole lot of things. But there was one main thing he repeated over and over: There's no path to the teaching. That's the core of the teaching as he described in the Core of the Teaching. He was not contradictory. It just means that everything else should be examined under that idea, and is subservient to it. I don't know what has Vernon to do with this. He did his research and provided his sources. You should do the same. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 65.88.88.127 (talk) 21:27, 5 January 2010 (UTC)

You can keep your POV to yourself. And you can interpret K's teachings and classify which part of the teachings should be subservient to the rest and how to examine the teachings. By the way, if there are different grades in the teachings themselves, that could be considered a path, no?! But the world at large knows that K had no interpreters of the teachings and your peculiar interpretations have no place in the article. The point was that Vernon never met K or heard his talks which by your logic would exclude him from being mentioned in the article.

120.155.243.123 (talk)


 * I'm not the one saying the pathless land is the core of the teaching, K is. Since he considers it the core, then everything else is more superficial in comparison. At least in the English language. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 65.88.88.127 (talk) 22:06, 5 January 2010 (UTC)

K had said various things throughout his life. He did not say that everything outside the core is superficial, YOU are. That is YOUR POV. K did not just sit there and repeat "truth is a pathless land" at every talk and in every book for 60 years! On the contrary there are far more instances of admonitions, step by step enquiry process etc when compared to the dissolution speech. May be you should read all the material spread over seven decades. 120.155.214.97 (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 22:29, 5 January 2010 (UTC).

I think that the Dalai Lama is comparable to K in stature and influence. His style and mission are different from K's in that he seems more willing than K to change his message somewhat according to his audience. He wants to bring Tibetan Buddhism more into the mainstream but his actual school is really not mainstream at all. The approach is just different but he is an influential religious person. For Maharshi, I am not sure of the connection or if the two ever met, but he does have influence and stature. I don't think that K approved of Osho, and he had a disagreement with Thakar who was a kind of protegee of K's at one time. The point is that Osho, Thakar and the other woman do not seem to be K's peers, so he is kind of trivialized by their mention in the main article and by the way they are grouped together. It looks like name dropping. I see that someone has put them back into the main text. It looks to me like it is there just for show or because an editor likes them for some reason. Sach.b (talk) 00:41, 5 January 2010 (UTC)


 * Really. So just because somebody is "prominent" or has "stature" according to somebody's opinion, they should be mentioned in the article, regardless of the effect on the subject's life? He did meet with Dalai Lama a couple of times. And???? Did this change K's life? Or the Lama's? They liked each other. What can this mean to anybody else? As for the others they're mentioned as examples of "teachers" who knew of him. As you know, I'm not the one inserting them in the text, even a footnote is a waste, but I guess that's OK. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 65.88.88.127 (talk) 21:20, 5 January 2010 (UTC)


 * Basically it is because peers of similar reputation in a given area help to establish the person's reputation for the article.Sach.b (talk) 21:53, 5 January 2010 (UTC)


 * Isn't the reputation of the person established throughout the article? Don't you think that a footnote is enough? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 65.88.88.127 (talk) 22:01, 5 January 2010 (UTC)
 * Yes it is enough in the Middle years section. I think that they can be in the afterword.  I never liked the sentence about the gurus in the Middle years section. Sach.b (talk) 23:46, 5 January 2010 (UTC)

Yes, really!! And it is not an opinion, yours is. When a person prominent in any field makes a comment about another in the same field it carries a lot more weight than some common dude. By your silly logic, the cooks who served K for decades must be mentioned because they interacted with K long enough. Enough. It is obvious that the Dalai Lama and the Maharishi were prominent leaders even if you disagree. And if they taught a different teaching as you claim, then it is all the more commendable that they could see the value of K's teachings. Their comments belong in the main article regardless of your convoluted POV. 120.155.158.91 (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 21:40, 5 January 2010 (UTC).


 * There's no "field" here. This is not hard science. Just because somebody - whoever that is -praises somebody else adds nothing to the bio, except as a footnote. What "field" is Dalai lama or Maharshi or K in? And why should it matter? The article should reflect (in a footnote) that the praises were footnotes in the subject's life. At least according to his biographers. If you have another reliable source to dispute this, let it be known. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 65.88.88.127 (talk) 21:56, 5 January 2010 (UTC)
 * The article is for the general reader, so I think the Dalai Lama's opinion and Maharshi's can be in the main text, like in the afterword as it is developed. Incidentally, I don't understand why the argument over the world teacher has been revived.  Sach.b (talk) 22:21, 5 January 2010 (UTC)


 * No. Again the article is going to become a listing of various people offering opinions on K. The pertinent info about Dalai Lama and Maharshi is given, in the pertinent way ie according to the weight they add to the subject's life and our understanding of it. Footnoted info in the appropriate bio sections is enough imo. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 65.88.88.127 (talk) 22:40, 5 January 2010 (UTC)
 * I like the footnoting in the "middle Years section." What I am saying is that the Lama and Maharshi's opinions can be somewhere else like in the afterword section.  That's the place for it because it is a consolidation of the old influence and criticism sections.Sach.b (talk) 23:31, 5 January 2010 (UTC)


 * Why should they also be elsewhere? They are already mentioned. We don't have any public statements from either. Lama's statement comes from a 3rd sources, namely Jayakar and Lama's associates. Maharshi's statement comes from another 3rd source, one of his followers. This is made clear in the sources provided. Why add yet another instance of the same info to the article? It is unnecessary and provides undue weight. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 65.88.88.127 (talk) 19:33, 6 January 2010 (UTC)


 * I thought that the Lama made remarks at K's birth centenary I may be wrong. Sach.b (talk) 20:17, 6 January 2010 (UTC)


 * http://www.tibet.ca/en/newsroom/wtn/archive/old?y=1995&m=4&p=22_1 Sach.b (talk) 20:40, 6 January 2010 (UTC)


 * Yes, the Lama made the comments in public and I happened to be there tho I don't remember the date. In any case the Lama has said similar things about K elsewhere and I would not dismiss Jayakar who was K's official biographer. Especially on the coverage of K's life in India that was omitted by Lutyens. Also the attendance was certainly over 3000 and was covered in the newspapers and foundation publications. Regarding the Maharishi, his comments were made in public at his ashram and later became part of a book which is a compilation of his responses to questions in public. Similarly for Anandamayi Ma and Osho. In any case, we cannot restrict the article to these conditions. We won't have anything left to go by without K's two official biographers and I think he had gone through most if not all the material before they were published. However, I would not say the same of Vernon.

120.156.86.94 (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 02:21, 7 January 2010 (UTC).


 * I just don't like the sentence about Maharshi, Osho, Thakar and Anandamayi Ma. With the possible exception of Maharshi, they are not K's peers and I think that the sentence suggests that K is clubbed together with them in some way.  Osho's reputation is shaky and K actually had a falling out with Thakar over something she published.  It seems misleading to toss this sentence into the main text as if K's reputation is established on their opinions or that he is similar to them.Sach.b (talk) 03:04, 7 January 2010 (UTC)


 * Anandamayi Ma was well known and she was certainly a peer of K who lived between 1896 and 1982. In any case we cannot insist that somebody needs to be his peer to be mentioned in the article. I have no knowledge of Thakar falling out with K, but she did issue a statement when he died and spoke highly of him till her death. Between you and me I will be happy to remove Osho. However, as editors we need to make an effort to be objective and put aside our personal views. I would agree with you that his reputation is shaky but that is our POV and the majority does not seem to think so. He is well known, his own books and publications continue to sell well (outsells K). So removing him will be harsh, objectively speaking.

120.152.167.242 (talk) 02:06, 8 January 2010 (UTC)


 * In any case Osho and Thakar are too young to have been praising K during the "Middle years" period. I think that the whole sentence should go and possibly some of the information could be included somewhere else. But I still think that it is inappropriate to suggest that these two are peers of K.  If Osho had to be in the article (which I don't see why) his criticisms upon K's death would also have to in.  As for Thakar, even if she was praising him after their falling out I don't see her opinion as being of very much importance.  Perhaps a footnote somewhere. Sach.b (talk) 14:31, 10 January 2010 (UTC)


 * I think you are correct. In this case, it should be mentioned in the Afterword, imo, right after the paragraph on Sloss and Nearing. It would be even better to source it through the KFI, although the source you provided is proper, imo. I'll try to see if this can be found in KFI's communications. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 65.88.88.127 (talk) 21:16, 6 January 2010 (UTC)


 * Also please look at the following, written by a participant to the Centenary celebration the source you provided alludes to. The pertinent info about Dalai Lama is on page 4. According to the author, the celebrations at Visanta Vihar attracted about 300 people, not 3000 as mentioned in the Tibet Canada site. Since the event took part over 4 days, it is not clear what dates these numbers refer to. http://www.godwin-home-page.net/Short-Pieces/Krishnamurti/Krishnamurti.pdf —Preceding unsigned comment added by 65.88.88.127 (talk) 22:05, 6 January 2010 (UTC)


 * Another (minor?) discrepancy: Tibet Canada mentions Lama's talk as inaugurating the celebrations. Godwin, in the text above said the talk happened on the LAST day of the Centenary celebrations, January 21, 1995. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 65.88.88.127 (talk) 22:11, 6 January 2010 (UTC)


 * I don't have any KFI bulletins but I do have the KFT ones. Also I have the souvenir but it was already printed up at the time of the event, obviously. It has no schedule.  Maybe the attendance fluctuated during the 5 day event but I will check to see if something is written up in the KFT bulletin. The Godwin article is interesting.Sach.b (talk) 02:44, 7 January 2010 (UTC)


 * Keep in mind that the Tibet Canada website page is a publicity page, and it may have an interest in hyping attendance wherever the Lama speaks. Godwin seems a more neutral observer. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 96.246.73.13 (talk) 15:47, 7 January 2010 (UTC)


 * A short entry could be made in the Afterword that Dalai Lama spoke at the KFI Centenary celebration (I think his subject was "ahimsa") and, while at it, praised K. There doesn't have to be any mention of crowd size on the text itself. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 65.88.88.127 (talk) 20:09, 7 January 2010 (UTC)


 * Any idea if the source material given in the Tibet Canada site can be found elsewhere? According to them it's from the "India Express" newspaper dated Jan 22, 1995. Also, it seems that Godwin referes to the 4-day Centenary Gathering, whereas Tibet Canada refers to the subsequent Centenary Celebration. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 65.88.88.127 (talk) 21:52, 7 January 2010 (UTC)


 * I could not find an online archive for "India Express." I checked the first KFT Bulletin for 1995.  It Reads: The centenary year was formally inaugurated by the Dalai Lama and the former president of India Mr. R. Venkatraman, Mrs. Pupul Jayakar and Mr. O R Rao, secretry of the KFI.  Speaking for the most part in English, the Dalai Lama described with affection and charm his meetings with Krishnamurti, paying tribute to him as a great teacher and philosopher. (KFI Bulletin, First Centenary Edition, 1995.)Sach.b (talk) 16:46, 8 January 2010 (UTC)


 * Then I think it would be appropriate to add info about this to the Afterword, referencing with the KFI Bulletin source.

Don't you read the earlier comments? Whether you like it or not, they are religious leaders which is why it matters. Spirituality also has leaders and common folks. You can harp all you want that it adds nothing but that is just your POV.

120.155.49.0 (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 22:22, 5 January 2010 (UTC).

Footnote about World Teacher in "Break with the past"
This one:

"However, several decades later, in discussions with close associates, Krishnamurti seemed to dismiss the "World Teacher"/Maitreya association, in one instance stating that it was "too concrete", [as an explanation of his life-story] and "not subtle enough". See Lutyens, "Awakening", p 234, and also Jayakar, "Krishnamurti", p 439-440"

I inserted it to round out the info about K's views re: the World Teacher. Especially since disproportionate (in my opinion) attention is given to the fact that he never explicitly say he was not the World Teacher. He also did not explicitly say he was. One of the quotes given was from private correspondence with a person he obviously cared for, and who according to her daughter was very distressed over the ending of the Order. Even then, instead of unequivocally, in private, telling her he is the Word Teacher, (and coincidentally lifting her burden) he steers her to what he says, not who he is. The other comment (answer to "Christ" inquiry) is neither endorsement nor rejection. It is also a bit inscrutable, as K does not clarify what, in his opinion, is Christ in the "pure sense". I think the inserted footnote gives interesting and important info for people who care about whether he was the World Teacher or not. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 65.88.88.127 (talk) 20:07, 6 January 2010 (UTC)


 * Once again you are off track. When this issue was at its peak in 1930, he had written a letter to clarify his position. He clearly wrote that he has NEVER denied being the WT but not in the TS sense of the word. The issue of the World Teacher has been well captured in the article following many rounds of discussion in the past. In any case "not subtle enough" hardly means that K dismissed the idea entirely as you claim or that he changed his position. There is NO SOURCE to substantiate that he changed his position on the WT question. That may be your personal POV but it has no place in the article. There are plenty of other sources as well. Read the discussions with Naude in Jan 1971 where they discussed the issue for over an hour.

120.156.109.165 (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 01:54, 7 January 2010 (UTC).


 * The article should give the whole range of K's thoughts on this, not just one or two quotes that give a slanted view. In both discussions with Lutyens/Zimbalist and with Jayakar, he was quite clear that he did not think the source of the teaching was World Teacher/Maitreya/Bodhisattva etc. Actually quoting him as "seeming to dismiss" maybe too tame. He did dismiss it - as in "no that's not it" - more than once. I don't know which discussion with Naude you're talking about. The ones I know from 1971 are from March 27 & 28 and do not discuss the World Teacher at all. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 65.88.88.127 (talk) 20:05, 7 January 2010 (UTC)


 * The article does precisely that. You have little knowledge of the discussions that took place before the wording was finalized. User Sach.b remembers. Even your quote does not dismiss the WT at all. It dismisses the way some associates conceived of the WT in concrete terms. Precisely the same that was done in the 20's by the Theosophists was repeated later by some associates and K's response was the same. There are literally dozens or more places where this issue has been addressed by K and a sample of those quotes and an explanation has been offered in the article without presenting a concrete conclusion. If you are not aware or have not read that material, I suggest you do so and come better prepared for a more informed discussion. And I would certainly read the material from Volume I of the Collected Works, the Star Bulletins from the late 20's and the Jan 71 discussions with Naude for starters. In any case, presenting your individual POV is against Wiki policy and I will have to remove it every time you try.

120.155.196.74 (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 23:38, 7 January 2010 (UTC).


 * No, that's not good enough. First, point out the exact date of discussion with Naude. Then, the Star Bulletin issues. Then, the appropriate pages from Collected Works. Secondly, what was discussed previously here has no authority. If the article is going to say in the text that he didn't deny being the world teacher - without also pointing that he didn't state expressly that he was, that's slanted language. He did make the remarks in his later discussions and his meaning was clear. At the very least, a footnote is indicated. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 65.88.88.127 (talk) 15:52, 8 January 2010 (UTC)


 * Your ignorance of the subject has to be cleared by YOUR own efforts, not by me or others spoon feeding material to you. If you have no knowledge of the material I mentioned you have no business to be editing the article, let alone putting your personal spin on it and imposing it in the article. The article clearly and correctly states that K said he was the WT/Christ etc more than once, always adding the clarification that it was not as understood by the people at large. That was exactly what K said whether you like it or not, whether you are able to grasp it or not. The article also points out that the subtlety of the distinction was lost on many people. Nobody is going to insert dozens of quotes on this same issue over and over, a representative sample has been provided. And try to be a bit more civil to the work done by others in the past. If their work has no authority in your eyes, neither does your personal slant and your half baked knowledge of the subject matter. You want to slant and bias the article with an isolated quote that you use to justify your own POV - that K changed his position later and essentially disowned everything he said earlier! Ridiculous!  There is nothing anywhere to support this conclusion, none of the biographers or other authors came to your conclusion based on the same quote. It simply won't fly, and I won't allow it.

120.156.253.76 (talk) 00:37, 9 January 2010 (UTC)


 * You have to provide the sources you're refering to. Period. Your word and opinion, along with everybody else's, including mine, counts for nothing. Also, I explained that the World Teacher/Maitreya issue needs to reflect the whole range of K's thoughts on the subject. The passages the footnote refers to are unequivocal. K rejected the WT connection in response to questions, or in the Open Door reference, when told of a prophesy about himself. I'll see if this rejection is better incorporated in the text rather as a footnote. It's certainly as important as Lutyens and Vernon stating that he didn't explicitly reject the title. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 65.88.88.127 (talk) 17:35, 9 January 2010 (UTC)


 * YOU are claiming a totally different conclusion based on the isolated quote you are using. This is in clear violation of Wiki policy which does NOT allow independent research and personal interpretations in articles. This is not an issue about your opinion or mine.  You can create your own web site with your opinions. You also have to educate yourself better on the issue. As mentioned earlier there are dozens of quotes on the subject, NONE of which support your conclusion. A few of these have been mentioned in the article and I have provided other sources where you could go to understand the issue better. That is, if YOU care. Also your reading difficulties seem to continue! The quotes in the article come directly from K himself (one in writing) and not from Vernon. The article is well balanced, a lot of effort and discussions have gone into it over the years and there is simply no scope for inserting your biased and personal POV into it. Period. If you continue to insert your POV it will constitute vandalism and you may be blocked. This also applies to all my changes you have been reverting, including those for language, grammar, and even spelling!. You have been warned. Take care.

120.156.143.66 (talk) 09:24, 10 January 2010 (UTC)


 * I think user 65's range of quotes gives a more nuanced impression of his thinking on the subject, especially the quote where he says that anyone could become the world teacher. I don't see any reason to keep removing the full range of quotes. The arguments on this from the past were over someone having the "You know Mum" quote in the main article.  I think that the newer paragraph and footnotes provide a better idea of what he said over time and they should be kept in.  Why is it a POV to provide these quotes and leave it to the reader? It shows good research.Sach.b (talk) 14:16, 10 January 2010 (UTC)


 * Sach.b, I have no problem with the quote per say. That is not the issue at all. However, user 65's conclusion that K dismissed the idea is untenable. To begin with, 'not subtle enough' is not even close to being a synonym for 'dismissed', so the quote he is using does not justify the conclusion which is purely a POV. If anything, K seems to indicate that the idea needs more refinement but is basically on track. Which is similar to what he said throughout and has been captured in the article which only states that K never denied he was the WT, not that he agreed to people's conception of the WT. User 65's conclusion cannot be substantiated by any of the 100 books by or about K. On a related issue, there are dozens and dozens of K quotes on this issue over a period of 60 years. As I recall, this was discussed at length in the past. If you think it is a good idea to provide the full range of quotes on the WT issue in the article, I have absolutely no problem at all. This means many, many instances of quotes along the lines of 'I am the WT/Christ/Krishna/Buddha etc etc and the famous 'I have come for those who long...' speech.  I am all for improving the article which has several other gaping holes though in my view the WT issue is not one of them. Opinions are, of course, welcome.

120.155.171.236 (talk) 05:57, 11 January 2010 (UTC)


 * You're hardly one to complain, as you thought that the "pathless land" was a theory, or that the quote from First and Last Freedom was in a different book. You have a history of taking things out of context and providing incomplete or wrong sources. But this is not the issue. If the text that he "never denied being the World Teacher" is to be included, then it must be elaborated on, since he made such a fuss for the next 60-odd years of "not being your guru or your teacher". The contradiction has to be addressed. So the quote from the letter to EL can be seen in a different light when one realizes that it was also a note of comfort to a person whose whole life was the WT project. Also the answer re: Christ to the reporter. First it means nothing much. What's Christ in "the pure sense"? Secondly it's just a sound-bite, a one liner perfect for a journalist. K gave him what he wanted. In the 1928 camp though, where it mattered, he gave a far more revealing explanation. As his quote shows, he thought that WHATEVER he said about being the Christ or not being the Christ would be misused. So that's another explanation why he "never said he was not the WT". Just leaving this in the text without elaboration could be interpreted that K was somehow "implying" - wink, wink - that you know, he's sort of the WT but he won't tell, it's a "secret". Add to this that with 1928 technology they were able to transcribe, proof, edit, publish and distribute this session as a booklet in 4 days. Why? Because K thought that it was unimportant? Because it shows that "he never said he was the WT"? As for his later discussions, anyone who reads the the passages can see how clear he was. Especially when he was told of the prophesy that the Tibetan texts mentioned him by name as a bodhisattva. He was asked whether this corroborated the Maitreya/WT business, and he said no, he didn't think so, it was "too concrete". The sources are provided. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 65.88.88.126 (talk) 15:13, 11 January 2010 (UTC)


 * Ah, you have yet to improve your reading skills! I am not going to go over your fiasco with the quote in The First and Last Freedom that you couldn't find. Or your wonderful categorization of K's teachings into superficial, subservient etc. Then again, we are not to say you are interpreting the teachings, since you can do no wrong! And now you are trying to interpret what Christ in the pure sense means or not! So K was keen to give journalists what they want, eh? Me thinks it would have been better to say 'Yes, I am the Christ who just arrived today', but what do I know? Anyway, keep going, humor is a rare commodity.  However, since 1928 there are dozens of direct questions and answers on this issue and I am not averse to providing all of them in the article.

120.156.148.247 (talk) 07:31, 12 January 2010 (UTC)


 * I don't know what you're talking about. I was the one who inserted the correct quote from First and Last Freedom originally. You are the one who was reverting to both the wrong source and the mangled quote. It's all in the editing history. The other stuff is nonsense. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 65.88.88.126 (talk) 16:21, 12 January 2010 (UTC)


 * I am talking about the deletion of the quote about sensate values that you keep deleting claiming it is not in The First and Last Freedom. I provided the reference from the book and also asked you to search the database for verification, two or three times. Something you have yet to do. And yes, the edit history and the earlier discussions clearly show that to be the case.

120.156.29.205 (talk) 23:28, 12 January 2010 (UTC)


 * Well, there’s no doubt that the more mature K was reluctant to claim the title of world teacher, so I am comfortable with 65’s version. I don’t know, but it sounds like you are looking to hint that he had an inner, private understanding of himself as the world teacher.  It sort of brings us back to square one because obviously later in life he said that the world teacher or the Bodhisattva  were too concrete as terms.We don't know exactly what his understanding was but he objected to the title.  Why would all of these things have to be quoted multiple times in the text when there is obviously a progression from what the teenaged K thought as compared to what the 85 or 90 year old thought?  In addition there is the problem of the article appearing to tacitly validate the Theosophical concept and project as if we are saying, “Oh well, the Theosophists were right after all.”  It doesn’t make sense given that his break from the Theosophical society was a movement away from their ideals and understanding. They were the ones who gave him the title. Sach.b (talk) 20:52, 11 January 2010 (UTC)


 * Sach.b, the link between 'more mature' and the term WT may be your conclusion but it is not entirely borne out by facts. Authors of prominent books like Sidney Field to Ariel Sanat as well as others will also differ with you. That may not be important. Factually speaking, the WT term was a term used by the Theosophists and not by K himself,  who never seemed to have considered it a title. Yet in the Jan 71 discussions with Naude, K makes it clear that his discovery by the Theosophists was NOT a chance event, which the article erroneously states. Left to himself, K never used words like WT, Krishna, Christ etc etc. However, he faced questions from people who used these terms. Yet, K also used his own terms like 'nameless', 'immense energy' etc and even at the end of his life at age 90 stated that there will not be a body like this (K) for many hundred years and was very particular how his body should be treated after he dies etc etc. No, I am not saying he had an inner or private understanding. I think he was fairly explicit about it, in fact using his own terms to be clearer than traditional terms like WT etc used by the Theosophists.  This is already clearly described in the article.  Unfortunately, people seem to be determined to fall into either of two camps - for or against the WT.  Which seems more a battle for a symbol.

120.152.84.81 (talk) 06:26, 12 January 2010 (UTC)


 * Where is that discussion with Naude? Provide that first, as you're not one to be believed, since you're taking things out of context. Also if you disagree with anything in the article, including that his discovery resulted from a chance meeting, you have to provide reliable, verifiable sources. "Prophesies", theosophical or other "texts", astrology, doctrines, etc don't count. Even if K said it wasn't by chance, that has to be corroborated. If it is not then it is just another opinion. As a bio, the article can't present the subject's opinions of him as facts about him. Ariel Sanat's book, btw, comes with a viewpoint already (the Theosophical one). As for Fields' book, can you point out the pages/sections you're refering to? Because you're unreliable. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 65.88.88.126 (talk) 16:13, 12 January 2010 (UTC)


 * Since personal attacks are your strength, let me state that I don't need to be certified as reliable by you or any nitwit who cannot read clearly or search a database. I am well versed with research and Wiki policies that you seem unfamiliar with. Contact any of the Foundations and request either transcripts or tapes of K's discussions with Naude regarding his discovery. When the time comes, I will make the changes to the article.

120.156.114.156 (talk) 23:23, 12 January 2010 (UTC)

Teachings prior to 1929 dissolution
One of the major issues in the article is the use of K's teachings prior to the dissolution of the Order in 1929. So far, nobody has referenced this material but now this has been done and there is no standard in place. Technically, the official K foundations do not consider any material prior to the dissolution to be part of his teachings. That in itself may or may not be significant. The larger issue is whether to consider all of his works, starting in 1910, as valid sources for the article. Or alternatively attach a disclaimer to any such reference. 120.156.75.92 (talk) 11:14, 11 January 2010 (UTC)


 * The "official" K Foundations have no say on the matter. They are not to be the interpreters of the teachings. K refered to his teachings prior to 1933 as being "immature" in the sense that they were not part of HIS maturity and his voice, but rather part of the "indoctrination" he had received on the part of the Theosophists. The quotes prior to 1929 used in the article are something else entirely. They show his gradual distancing, from the mid-1920s onwards, from the Theosophists and the OSE, including his use of new language that had fewer references to theosophical concepts. Or, they're personal correspondence (such as his letters to Besant) that have very little to do with teachings. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 65.88.88.126 (talk) 14:37, 11 January 2010 (UTC)


 * Try to understand that we are looking for an official record from K on the subject, for which the Foundations are the only source. Nobody is discussing interpretations here. You need to provide a source where K uses words to describe his TEACHINGS prior to 1933 as immature, indoctrination etc that you freely use. Your liberal interpretations of what others have said is irrelevant. As far as 'gradual distancing', this is again subject to one's POV. There have been people including Theosophists who felt he was offering quite a different teaching even from the outset.

120.156.214.213 (talk) 07:14, 12 January 2010 (UTC)


 * The "gradual distancing", apart from evident in his speeches from the mid-1920s onwards, is the terminology used by his biographers. I don't know what "people" you're refering to, and certainly "Theosophists" are definitely ones with an agenda. Reliable sources they're not. The reason the Foundations start the Complete Works from 1933 (with certain exceptions) is because they're heeding K's own words regarding the things he was saying prior to that date. "Immature" was his own characterisation. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 65.88.88.126 (talk) 15:56, 12 January 2010 (UTC)


 * Instead of these meaningless ramblings, it will be better if you respond to my earlier question. Try to provide a reference from K himself where he states that his earlier teachings were immature and indoctrinated. Simple as that. By the way, both sides on any issue will have an agenda. Theosophists and their opponents are two sides of the same coin. The article must remain neutral and offer both perspectives. This is also Wiki policy.

120.156.227.74 (talk) 23:35, 12 January 2010 (UTC)


 * I meant the multi-volume "Collected Works" in the paragraph above. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 65.88.88.126 (talk) 16:41, 12 January 2010 (UTC)


 * They are valid sources if placed in historical context and not used to pursue an agenda. In no case would I present the earlier pieces as being representative of his teachings as a whole.Sach.b (talk) 21:07, 11 January 2010 (UTC)


 * No single period can be said to be representative of his teachings. There is no danger there. However, keep in mind that what may seem an agenda to some may not be so to others. Anyhow, I take that as a 'yes'.

120.156.50.51 (talk) 07:04, 12 January 2010 (UTC)

Naming of Krishnamurti in "Childhood" section.
I changed the wording "Hindu" to "Brahmin" in the following sentence:

"As the eighth child, who happened to be a boy, he was, in accordance with common Brahmin practice, named after Sri Krishna."

Acoording to his biographers, this was common practice among high-caste Brahmins at that time, with no mention whether Hindus in general engaged in this practice. According to at least one source (which I will footnote in the article), K's family were Velanadu Brahmins, who are regarded as high-class Brahmins. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 65.88.88.69 (talk) 20:53, 15 January 2010 (UTC)

Obviously it should be Hindu and not Brahmin. The biographers are not authorities on Indian names and have made an error. Krishna is a name to given to boys across all castes and not limited to Brahmins. It is wrong to limit the naming practice to a tiny fraction of Hindus. 71.103.9.209 (talk) 02:10, 16 January 2010 (UTC)


 * I have no problem with that, I'm just using the language that his biographers used. They seem to distinguish between Hindu and Brahmin in several locations - I would at least expect Jayakar to substitute "Hindu" for "Brahmin" when appropriate. Also, it is made clear by the biographers that this was the practice of high caste Brahmins at that particular time. If the text that the biographers are using with respect to Hindu/Brahmin is to be changed, I think we should provide a good source to corroborate that change. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 65.88.88.127 (talk) 16:16, 16 January 2010 (UTC)


 * The article must not repeat obvious errors made by the biographers. This is a minor issue for both K and the biographers. In fact, boys (and some girls) are named after Krishna even if they are not the eight child. Being the eighth born only makes it more probable, nothing more. The authors have understandably not bothered about these details since that was not their focus 71.103.9.209 (talk) 16:30, 16 January 2010 (UTC)


 * Again I have no problem with the term. But if the biographers are in error, it should be corroborated by sources. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 65.88.88.127 (talk) 16:55, 16 January 2010 (UTC)


 * After looking at the biographies again, I must say I made a mistake in this particular. The biographers use terms such as "orthodox Hindu" or "devoutly traditional" to explain the naming of the 8th male whereas the term "Brahmin" is used, in a slightly different context, to signify the caste. In the instance of the naming of K, my edit was unjustified, and the phrasing should therefore be changed back to "Hindu". —Preceding unsigned comment added by 65.88.88.126 (talk) 18:05, 21 January 2010 (UTC)

Blanket reverts

 * An anon user (65.88.88.126) reverts multiple valid edits back to his/her particular version claiming it to be the 'proper version'. This is vandalism and a blatant violation of Wiki policy. On 1/17/10 there were about 10 such instances. No explanation was offered for any of the deletions. In effect the anon user's reverts nullified the following edits as can be seen from the edit history.

1. List of Books: Added to book list.

2. Later Years: Removed dated wording from reference.

3. Afterword: Moved quote dealing with a POV to reference

4. Middle Years: Corrected error in reference

5. Break with the Past: Added reference

6. Growing Up: Minor edit.

7. Growing Up: Grammar

8. Growing Up: Added some detail on face phenomenon

9. Growing Up: Added info on physical aspect related to process

10.Growing Up: Added detail to truncated quote

User HalfShadow and I did warn the anon user of repeated vandalism but to no avail. On 1/18/10, the same user reverted once again from a different ip address. For correcting genuine errors, user has again been asked to make specific corrections, one at a time each accompanied by an explanation. This is required by Wiki. Trust this puts an end to the blanket reverts. Bo.talks (talk) 04:12, 19 January 2010 (UTC)
 * I have fully-protected the article for five days to stop this edit war for now. Please discuss the merits of the individual changes (no blanket "my version is better" assertions, please). Let me know if any specific changes are needed before the protection expires. Fences  &amp;  Windows  11:00, 19 January 2010 (UTC)


 * Thank you. Article protection is long overdue. I have repeatedly offered to the anon user that he is more than welcome to correct any genuine/factual errors one by one with explanations. In case he did not browse the discussion page, I made it a point to mention it as comments in my edits. I will certainly not be doing any blanket reverts, nor do I have an outdated 'proper version' to revert. All my edits (barring undos of the anon users blanket reverts on 1/17) have been individual with valid sources and explanations. I again request the anon user to do the same and abide by Wiki policy. Bo.talks (talk) 11:40, 19 January 2010 (UTC)

The above is not true. It is my impression that there is one user or perhaps two users with different aliases attempting to manipulate the article. 65.88.88.126 has been working on the article for a long time and is making very good edits. Another anon user beginning with 120....and with a theosophical POV was making poor edits and reversions without explaining them and now appears to have taken the name Bo.talks. Sach.b (talk) 20:32, 19 January 2010 (UTC)

Since you mentioned my name I have to ask what is not true in my requests above. As far as content is concerned I have been open to factual corrections as anybody can see. All my edits have explanations. And the flood of blanket reverts was made by anon user 65.88.88.126 and also from 96...as far as I can tell. I don't see how blanket reverts can be considered as very good edits. They are a violation of Wiki policy and it was pointed out by two of us. I don't wish to get into a guessing game by pairing different names with accounts and POV, whoever you are. It would be helpful to be factual and work to improve the article in a constructive way. Bo.talks (talk) 22:34, 19 January 2010 (UTC)


 * I have been using the IP 65.88.88.x and 96.224/232.x.x in the past in editing the article.


 * The article had (and still has) presentation, conceptual and factual problems which I tried to edit using indications from other articles and editors, by a variety of sources, by what is generally accepted about the subject matter in the relevant literature, and by the life of the subject itself, as can be ascertained. I always tried to justify the text as it was, until I was confident that it was untenable to continue to do so. I had and still have a problem with editors/moderators/administrators that cripple the article by removing information in a blunt way, or who make assumptions with little prior research, as in the UN speech debate. I was called borderline "uncivil" when I disagreed with an editor who removed, wholesale, info that was badly presented but was essentialy true. That wholesale - and erroneous - removal being not "uncivil" in her/his view, apparently.


 * This is a philosophical article subject about a person who was claimed at some point to be humankind's savior. He moved for a while in well known circles, and befriended famous people. His philosophy, his audience, and the language he used, changed through the years, and can be deceptively simple or else pretty dense and vague for the uninitiated. There are many matters of interpretation, and a number of loaded, non-objective viewpoints. The subject attracted a fair share of attention by religious/mystic/new age types while alive, and it continues after his death. No mere opinions from them. They almost ALWAYS "know". And there is also the subject's private life, which was no less fascinating and controversial.


 * The primary sources are the subjects authorised biographers, and a number of other biographies. The authorised (and some other) biographers were obviously too close to him. Imo, they did a fair job, and I think they tried to be objective, not easy when you're so close to somebody. Mostly, but not always imo, they succeeded. The biographers who were not close to him fall into two categories: those who look at the subject with a particular viewpoint, and those who apparently are unattached students of the subject's life. I concentrate on the latter, unless there is some important verifiable info in the others, or if they show the subject under a worthwhile angle (no mumbo-jumbo, pseudo-scholarship, or things you have to believe in, first) that hasn't been discussed elsewhere.


 * Basically there has been one editor who has preconceived opinions. He is currently going by "Bo.talks". S/he has a hagiographical viewpoint about the subject. And very distinct opinions that he thinks are facts. To support these opinions in the article s/he has been selectively using quotes out of context, or quotes that are misrepresented as contiguous, or quotes with non-existent sources, or plainly, non-existent quotes. S/he also has been insisting into including minor points, or things that the biographers mentioned sparingly and in passing, or things that plainly are not represented by facts. This also serves into slanting the article into their POV. A case in point is the debate about the "World Teacher" business in "Break with the Past". BTW, the user 120.155/156.x.x, 123. and Bo.talks is very likely the same one. Actually this whole discussion page is very entertaining.


 * The debate about the "Wrongly sourced quote" is emblematic. The quote in question does not exist in the original source. Actually, the quote as it originally presented does not exist anywhere. I pointed it out, and provided a quote - very similar to the old one - from a proper source. First, "Bo.talks" - under an IP address - reverted the edit. Then he insisted it did exist in the original source - lying that s/he had the book and page open at the non-existent quote. After I linked (under IP 94. ), the text of the original source which ofcourse doesn't include the quote, s/he said that it was in more than one sources. When that one was shot down, s/he tried, in a laughable manner, to suggest that s/he was the one who uncovered the correct source and that I "couldn't find it". All the while reverting the correct quote with declaration of vandalism, POV etc. Also, by using the quote in a way that misrepresented the text (among other things, quote is non-contiguous).


 * In the course of another debate over another minor issue (that of which guru praised the subject and why that praise is so important - as if) the same person in the same paragraph accused me of personal attacks and called me a nitwit. It would be comical if that person was under 10 years old. I don't think that's the case though.


 * The claims of “anonymity” by "Bo.talks" are bogus. “Bo.talks” or any account name not accompanied by real particulars is as anonymous as 120.155/156.x.x, or 123.208.x.x. These IP addresses are not accidental. Their history shows a remarkable similarity with the other anonymous one, Bo.talks.


 * Another bogus thing are the claims of authority made by 120/123/Bo. Such as “final warning”, “you will be blocked” etc, especially on the edit history page. Does he think that anybody will take these seriously? Since he so often calls on “Wiki Policy”, in another sly scheme to show him/herself a rule-abiding editor, I wonder if there is actually a policy against slyly impersonating, and badly, an administrator.


 * Then there is the mythical consensus he invokes. There isn’t any. As an editor of the article, I disagree with anything he’s trying to pass off as “consensus”. This leads to the other charge, that of my POV. Basically, when he’s not prevailing in the discussion page, he goes ahead and makes the changes anyway, calling it “consensus”, and declaring any reversals as “POV” and “vandalism”.


 * One example centered on what the subject said was the "core" of his teaching. I foolishly thought that if the subject goes to the trouble to define a certain aspect of his teaching as the "core", then by default, there must be other aspects that are not core - ie they're more superficial. Maybe out of misunderstanding the English language, "Bo" etc called this a POV or OR. And that's how it goes.


 * 120/123/Bo is trying to twist anything anybody says into seeming as if it/they are somehow “agreeing” with him in some way. In the discussion page he wondered why user Sach.b (another anonymous user who is otherwise a positive here), hadn’t undone an edit that 120/123/Bo disagreed. As if again, Bo was the arbiter of consensus, and Sach.b the executor of such. And he was quick to claim HalfShadow – who parachuted into the editing history a couple days ago - as an ally who also had “warned” me. HalfShadow did nothing of the sort, and even if he had, what of it? He's as anonymous as anyone else.


 * Now he’s relieved that a block (by another anonymous user/admin, Fences & windows) is in place, thinking others will ignore the fact that as the box says, the protection does not constitute an endorsement of the current version (his/hers by virtue of being the last to edit).


 * And it's a good thing too that it is not an endorsement, as it is full of omissions, innacuracies, trivialities and slanted presentation. As soon as the page is ready to be edited again, I intend to revert to factual, pertinent, info, and continue with the corrections.


 * I agree. There has never been a consensus about Bo.talks edits to this article.These claims have been manufactured by him or her. As for evidence of his or her POV, one need look no further the Maitreya article that he or she is also editing. Krishnamurti is portrayed as having been overshadowed by "Maitreya" (a view rejected by Krishnamurti) and a large passage has been directly lifted from the Krishnamurti article. This so called edit war is a sham and the protection should be lifted in order that the article can be corrected to its proper version. Sach.b (talk) 20:32, 20 January 2010 (UTC)


 * To anon user 65.. (and 96...etc). Anybody who disagrees with you has been clubbed together and chided. I have no desire to argue or comment on your investigative capacities. The only pertinent points you have made are that you don't care what anybody says to you if the person is anonymous, and that you are waiting to resort to reverts again once the protection is lifted. Your threat is clear and so is the mediator's position regarding such reverts or claims that a particular version alone is correct. Amazing what a request to stop blanket reverts can lead to. Bo.talks (talk) 23:27, 20 January 2010 (UTC)


 * To the user (if different) who is in constant agreement with the person reverting the article. If you care to look at the list of my edits above you will find that most of them are almost innocuous. A few are additions to the book list, one is completion of a quote, two are minor edits, and some are addition of references to support existing material in the article. The only major addition to the article was the phenomenon of Krishnamurti's face. And this was a direct quote from Krishnamurti himself in 1979 and it is significant because it covers the entire period of his life. If that is a POV then it is abundantly clear who is terrified of facts. And have the gall to accuse other people of manufacturing facts. Sounds like the desperation of someone screaming "POV" as a last resort when the facts are placed on the table and there is no evidence to counter it. What is the "proper version" that you are so anxious to restore? Unsourced text, incomplete quotes and book list, suppression of certain aspects of Krishnamurti that you dislike or find inconvenient. And, yes, I am editing the Maitreya article only since yesterday (as if that is relevant) but you are way off with your conclusions. Had you bothered to check my edits for that article you would have found that I did not come up with the section title (overshadowing) for the Krishnamurti section that you use to portray as my view. The prior content in that article was biased since it had no references and that is all I have attemped to improve until now by borrowing from this article, more work certainly remains. You have yet to reply to my question yesterday either - about what is not true in my initial request above. It only seems to become more and more clear which users (or accounts) are working in tandem to manipulate the article, even by resorting to brute force reverts whenever needed. Bo.talks (talk) 00:35, 21 January 2010 (UTC)


 * The quotes about the "face" that 120/123/Bo refers to are typical of items taken out-of-context and a misrepresentation, besides loading the article with interpretations. First, the "face" refered to in the quote is not Krishnamurti's face. It is actually unclear what K meant as himself was very tentative about it, although it is highly likely that he was describing some effects of the "process". I make the assumption because Jayakar (in her typical elliptical way) devotes the relevant chapter sections to explanations/discussions of the process. The relevant info is in pages 132-133, chapter 12. This does not belong in a bio article, but in philosophical/religious speculation or analysis. The other source offered, Chapter 37 "I suddenly saw the face", again deals with possible, tentative explanations of K's state, and it begun with a question put on him on whether he had "visions". The conversation recorded by Jayakar (as with the previous of chapter 12) goes at length without reaching any conclusions. The existence of these discussions had already mentioned in the article. Selectively using parts of these informal, inconclusive discussions in the text thereby giving them undue weight slants the article and constitutes - drumroll please - a POV. This is nothing new; user 120/123/Bo's has used these tactics in the past. The thing is that in discussion he never admits this, but tries to pile on irrelevancies to overwhelm, or/and change the discussion to another direction thinking that he can avoid the previous direction that has soured on her/him. In my view, anything he adds or edits in the article is suspect and this is justified by his overall behavior.

Notice also the phrasing above where he seems to imply that I ignore the absent "mediator" - implying again, unsuccesfully, that he follows the rules. As far as I can see, the "mediator" made a general observation about making blanket statements without pointing out anyone in particular. This applies to user 120/123/Bo as much as to anyone else.


 * Bo/120/123, you did not have the consensus of others working on the article when you made your edits and reversions even though you proceeded as though you did. On the matter of the footnotes in the paragraph which talks about the world teacher, there was a consensus that 65’s version should remain and you went ahead and continued to revert his edits against the consensus. You also made many other dubious changes without adequate discussion and continued to revert when the article was returned to its former content.  The “blanket reverts” are being done by you and not other editors.  I looked at the Maitreya article and determined that the entity “Maitreya” is treated there as a factual entity which incarnated in Jesus and Krishnamurti.  It is not an article about the concept of “Maitreya”, but  reads like a religious tract.  If you can’t tell the difference between a devotional religious tract and an encyclopedia article you can’t expect not to be challenged here, it’s as simple as that. Sach.b (talk) 01:41, 22 January 2010 (UTC)

Whoever you are (you did not sign your reply but sound like anon 65.88..) you made my point very well. So my verbatim and direct quotes from Krishnamurti himself about the face are not valid and is a misrepresentation. On the other hand your personal interpretations and commentary above with liberal use of words like "unclear", "highly likely", "possible", your personal "assumption", Jayakar's "elliptical way", etc etc needs to be accepted as facts by one and all who reads the article. Sorry, it does not work that way and you should know that at least by now. This is an article on Krishnamurti. His quotes cannot be excluded by you or anyone for not being in agreement with their individual POV. Period. If Krishnamurti himself (Not You) used your speculative words or said something different elsewhere, you are more than welcome to add those quotes with proper citations. However, on the face question Krishnamurti was very clear with his answer and not at all worried how others may receive it. Neither should you. You will not be able to find hard facts to come anywhere close to your POV above. And don't even think of resorting to blanket reverts anymore to impose your "proper" version on everyone. Also you have only addressed one issue about the face among more than ten edits. Which begs the question, 'what were your other blanket reverts for'?. Bo.talks (talk) 23:44, 21 January 2010 (UTC)


 * I am ok with K's comments in the article. Lets move on please. 207.233.110.67 (talk) 21:03, 23 January 2010 (UTC)


 * Yes, I didn't think anybody would have a problem with any article that reproduces comments made by the subject of the article!. Guess we learn something new all the time. Bo.talks (talk) 06:48, 24 January 2010 (UTC)

User Sach, you have not answered my pointed questions for 3 days but tried to make baseless accusations to defend blanket reverts from anon user 65.88.88.126 and 96.... Count them, the user you are trying to defend made 10 blanket reverts on 1/17. I have not deleted any footnote from the article as you claim. My edits are very clear and listed above. I have added references as stated. If anything has been deleted by anyone (apparently I am responsible for all anon users except for the accounts used by your friend), the correct course of action is to reinsert that content. Rolling back multiple edits and claiming a particular version alone as 'proper' will and must be challenged. Further one needs consensus only when adding cerain material such as from indirect sources. Not for adding books, references etc as I explained earlier. You also seem to want to discuss the Maitreya article here, rather than the Krishnamurti article which is the issue. I have edited that article only on one instance. You probably have spent more time on Maitreya than I have. You can make all the edits you want there but remember that editing an article on Hitler does not make someone a nazi. That is the reasoning you are using for your attacks here of POV and theosophy - because I edited some other article once. I would rather not stoop to that level. My edits are well sourced and will stand on their own merits. Bo.talks (talk) 03:11, 22 January 2010 (UTC)


 * Your own reversions are not "blanket?" That is the reason that your accusations of "blanket" reverts are baseless and untrue. Even the mediator that you summoned - "Fences and Windows" - said that you were edit warring and advised you to "get off your high horse" (see his talk page), which you have conveniently ignored.


 * On Wikipedia users are encouraged to get a consensus before making as many changes as you did, but even if you had had consensus with others of a like mind your changes would still constitute the introduction of a POV. The theosophical POV that you are attempting to introduce with your manipulation of the text, footnotes and now by adding material about "the face" is not supported by the Wikipedia policy on minority viewpoints. That's what the Theosophical perspective on Krishnamurti is:  a minority viewpoint. Your opinions won't change the fact. Sach.b (talk) 00:13, 24 January 2010 (UTC)

I have no intent to change any facts, only to include them. I am no expert on Theosophy, but I know Theosophy does not consider Krishnamurti to be one of theirs even today. So your allegation that somehow it is a Theosophy POV is bogus. And I suggest you do a diff to find out what I added. It was about a physical phenomenon noticed by others and to which Krishnamurti gave a forthright reply. I have reproduced his reply in the article. Somehow your personal discomfort with his reply makes you squeal POV. Unfortunately your personal distress and desire to suppress factual information has no place in evaluating the accuracy of the content and will not work. Deliberate suppression of facts is no different than introducing falsehood. Wikipedia does not have any limit on the number of edits one can make, nor is consensus related to the number of edits one makes. I also notice the way you get self righteous and suddenly disdain consensus with your POV that groups people with "a like mind" as a representing a minority viewpoint. In other words, even if many others feel the way I do, it does not matter. What is the minority viewpoint? How do you know and can you point to any objective survey data? How does Krishnamurti talking about himself translate into a minority viewpoint?! Finally, I have acknowledged my undos of the blanket reverts at the very start of this topic. I had also acknowledged it in the admins talk page as well. Obviously you did not read that part either. The continuing threats to the article till now are still coming from only two users/accounts and we all know who they are. I am more than confident the admin will take care of blanket reverts should they be repeated again in the future. Bo.talks (talk) 06:32, 24 January 2010 (UTC)


 * Look up the definitions of minority viewpoints and undue weight. Their criteria is given and this is how it is determined on Wikipedia.Sach.b (talk) 22:32, 24 January 2010 (UTC)


 * The information satisfies all Wiki criteria regarding authenticity and verifiability. It is not a viewpoint at all - minority or majority. Rather it is a simple statement of facts by Krishnamurti himself who happens to be the subject of the article. Get used to facts. Bo.talks (talk) 22:54, 24 January 2010 (UTC)


 * The info you put in is out of context, misquoted, vague and slants the article. You're the last person to claim any Wiki criteria. It doesn't matter. I'm in the process of re-doing the article into a true biographical entry, and away from your biases. Let's start by going back to a less loaded version, shall we? this is editor 65.88.88.x from the other IP, by the way.