Customer Reviews

Krishnamurti: Two Birds on One Tree

5 star:		(1)
4 star:		(0)
3 star:		(0)
2 star:		(0)
1 star:		(1)

 

 

In this work Mr. Ravindra tries to justify his self-admitted lack of understanding of J. Krishnamurti by taking numerous stabs at him and trying to discredit him. A waste of money, don't buy it.

Another reviewer puts it well:

"At the end if it, Ravi Ravindra, who is trained as a physicist, questions if J.Krishnamurti was not a freak, as the Ravindra tells us honestly that he seems to feel incapable of living a life without a center, or perhaps also because he never saw anybody around Krishnamurti that was centerless or without selfishness."

That forms the centre of Ravindra's motives: deep inside he seems to think K was a failure. Yes, he must feel the immensity of the challenges K poses and not being able to grasp it because the ego is too strong, he concludes K was a failure. But he doesn't do that elegantly, he tries to do that by discrediting K, using cheap gossip and shaky logic. But just because someone failed to understand and apply K doesn't mean K's teachings can not be tested, applied, grasped, or discarded on their own without focusing on the teacher.

The reviewer further writes:
"he ends investigation and seem to have thrown in the towel, but that also demands a lot of courage,even if some will see this a an incapacity to learn."

Yes, but Ravindra gives talks and writes books to spread his confusion. As long as there is a market, there is a product. So gullible people love to listen to people like Ravindra. His confusion comforts theirs, and justifies their not wanting to take on potentially life changing challenges like, is it possible to live without fear or inner conflict?

Ravi Ravindra gives us a candid view of how it was to meet J. Krishnamurti
during twenty years in private and being invited to come whenever he felt like.At the end if it, Ravi Ravindra, who is trained as a physicist, questions if J.Krishnamurti was not a freak, as the Ravindra tells us honestly that he seems to feel incapable of living a life without a center, or perhaps also because he never saw anybody around Krishnamurti that was centerless or without selfishness.Of course by considering J.Krishnamurti a freak, he ends investigation and seem to have thrown in the towel, but that also demands a lot of courage,even if some will see this a an incapacity to learn.As there seem to be no two persons that agree completely on who J.Krishnamurti was or even on what he said,I do not see why not read what has been written on him if one is at all interested in all this, as the biographies contradict each other.Besides the rather "true believer" biographies of Mary Lutyens, one should also read those biographies that are more critical as "Lives in the Shadow with J.Krishnamurti" by Radha Rajagopal Sloss, who grew up near J.Krishnamurti.
As many of those who read J.Krishnamurti are bound to consider any biographies as not relevant or even as gossip, one can only say that it is by reading J.Krishnamurti himself that we can have a better understanding of what all this is about, which certainly starts by learning every day what we are as if we had never read any book on that.