I am down voting this article, there are a lot of different Krishnamurti biographers and the author is only citing the worst witness. I am doubting that Radha Sloss is independent in her opinion, she is not a credible witness too, nobody else claims to know that K. had a liaison with her mother and a lot of people were around Krishnamurti, and nobody is confirming that story. She is biased and one is wondering, if the author just read the wrong book about Krishnamurti to get informed for his article. Because there is not much more substance to the article.

Krishnamurti folks are serious people, they try to understand often a life long Krishnamurti, while it sounds that the author is calling them stupid and maybe they are stupid. On the other hand, when one is reading the article, one doesn’t get the impression that the author proceeded on the inner path, and tries to challenge his and human conditioning. The article is just trash and doing his part to contribute to the human cacophony. If the author had walked the inner path it would not be such a biased article, I didn’t like his Theosophie article either, but this one is worse.

And if that liaison happened, who cares? It is not our business! Could even be that Rajagapol consented to that liaison, nobody knows! What I don’t believe, but it is not total impossible! The 20 year law suit, was about getting Krishnamurtis rights back on his material, who else should be the owner? The author just proves he hasn’t a clue about K. and the inner paths. By the way, I write too about Krishnamurti, my articles are sometimes strange too, but I don’t write in a Umair Haique style, just to get attention.