THE TRUTH ABOUT KRISHNAMURTI'S AFFAIR WITH HIS SECRETARY'S WIFE

Alsibar is a spirituality researcher who has studied Jiddu Krishnamurti extensively, and he published this video where he talks about the relationship that Jiddu Krishnamurti had for many years with the wife of Desikacharya Rajagopalacharya, who was Krishnamurti's personal secretary and the one in charge of managing his organizations.

And here's my translation:

I have been planning to make this video for a long time, showing Jiddu Krishnamurti's version of the relationship he had with the wife (Rosalind) of his private secretary (Rajagopal), because I am always asked about or receive erroneous comments about this episode in Krishnamurti's life.

After much research and organization of information, the video that will reveal the truth about this matter is finally ready. Be sure to watch the entire video, or you won't understand the full message. Stay tuned, because there's a very important and enlightening revelation at the end! Thank you very much!

Hello everyone, how are you? I'm so happy to be back with another video for you. Today I'm bringing you one of the most famous and intriguing cases in the world: Krishnamurti's love affair with Rosalind, the wife of his former secretary, Rajagopal.

The big question is: was there really a betrayal? Who was actually betrayed? What's behind this whole story? That's what we're going to talk about today.

I've wanted to make this video for a while to clarify this story, because it always comes up in conversations and comments. The worst part is seeing how things get distorted in such an absurd way.

This video isn't meant to gossip about anyone's life, but rather to reveal the truth about the events surrounding one of the greatest enlightened beings of all time, Krishnamurti. Come on. It's good for you to know some of these characters, what was right and what was wrong. That's all.

Radha Rajagopal, daughter of Rosalind Rajagopal, published a book in 1991 titled "Shadow Lives with J. Krishnamurti" in which she revealed the secret romance between her mother and Krishnamurti. This relationship lasted more than 20 years. According to Radha, it was 25 years and began in 1932.

In that book, Radha obviously tells her own version, presenting her father as the victim and Krishnamurti as the great villain of the story. But what few know is that this secret relationship is just the tip of the iceberg of a much larger plot, a plot worthy of a movie.

But what really happened? Is it true that Krishnamurti betrayed his personal secretary with his own wife? Or was Krishnamurti himself betrayed? His trust, his naiveté, his age, his kind heart... What was really at stake? That's what we're going to talk about next.

Every story has more than one side. Mary Lutyens, who cared for Krishnamurti in England when he was a teenager, wrote another book responding to the accusations made by Radha, titled "Krishnamurti and the Rajagopals".

Mary also witnessed most of these events, and she asserts that the great victim in this whole story was actually Krishnamurti.

To understand this plot, it is necessary to know a little about the history and social context in which its protagonists lived, and that is what I am going to reveal now.

Rosalind was the girlfriend and caregiver of Nitya, Krishnamurti's brother, who died in 1925 from tuberculosis.

Krishnamurti and Rosalind fell in love, but Annie Besant, who was then the president of the Theosophical Society of Adyar, did not approve of the romance because Krishnamurti was being trained by that organization to be the messenger of the World Master.

So when Annie Besant learned of this affair, she sought a way to "fix things." She summoned Rajagopal, the defeated candidate for Messenger of the World Master, and proposed a deal: that he serve and dedicate his life to the chosen Messiah, Krishnamurti, and marry Rosalind.

It is important to emphasize that at that time Krishnamurti, Rosalind, and Rajagopal lived in the same place, which was convenient for Mrs. Besant since they both took care of Krishnamurti, who at that time was having those mystical attacks, known as the enlightenment process that Krishnamurti experienced, and he needed close company.

With one stroke, Besant solved several problems: she arranged a marriage and a job for Rajagopal, broke up Krishnamurti's relationship with Rosalind, and as an added bonus, kept Krishnamurti's image safe, at least for a while.

Rajagopal accepted the deal because it allowed him to have a guaranteed income, status, stay in the best hotels, travel the world, meet influential people, and have a wife who was very beautiful at the time.

Rosalind also agreed for the same reasons. And Krishnamurti also agreed to keep Rosalind close to him. But as expected, Krishnamurti and Rosalind continued their relationship in secret for years.

Everyone knew about their relationship, including Rajagopal, who accepted this situation as a personal sacrifice for the mission of the Instructor, to whom he claimed to be very "devoted".

The lawsuit

For almost 20 or 25 years, this situation continued largely unchanged. But over time, Rajagopal became increasingly abusive, authoritarian, and irritating toward Krishnamurti, even mistreating him publicly.

Mary Lutyens says that Krishnamurti had to ask Rajagopal for the money he required because Rajagopal was the one who managed everything, while Rajagopal himself lived a luxurious life.

It was obvious that Rajagopal was taking advantage of his position, being responsible for all the administrative and financial aspects of Krishnamurti's work, and even becoming his legal representative.

So people began to distrust Rajagopal's management of Krishnamurti Writings Incorporated, the company that handled Krishnamurti's assets.

Then the disagreements began: the other partners of the Krishnamurti Foundation, and Krishnamurti himself, disagreed with Rajagopal on administrative and financial matters.

From that moment on, things began to worsen. Rajagopal met another woman and separated from Rosalind, and at that point, the legal battles between Krishnamurti and Rajagopal began. The case went to court in a grueling process that lasted several years.

In summary: Rajagopal owned all the copyrights to Krishnamurti's work, and Jiddu Krishnamurti found himself in an absurd situation: he risked losing the rights to his own work, foundations, and schools.

It was during this time that their secret romance came to light, as Rosalind, despite being separated, sided with her ex-husband, an attitude that surprised Krishnamurti.

Finally, after years and years of legal battles, they reached an agreement, but by then many dirty secrets had already been revealed.

What was the reason for that legal battle?

It all started when Krishnamurti began to suspect irregularities in Rajagopal's administration, so he asked Rajagopal to be part of the board of directors of Krishnamurti Writings Incorporated.

After four years of Rajagopal dragging out the matter, Krishnamurti decided to found another foundation, the Krishnamurti Foundation, and thus began a legal battle to recover the copyright and assets related to Krishnamurti's work.

Rosalind  and Rajagopal threatened Krishnamurti with revealing to the world the secret relationship he had had with her over the years. But Krishnamurti refused to give in, and the relationship was made public, evidently with the intention of ruining his reputation.

When Mary Lutyens asked Krishnamurti in a letter why Rajagopal accepted that relationship, Krishnamurti replied literally and without hesitation: "To maintain control over me," and continued: "This was indeed used at the time as a threat against him."

And in the second of the two letters that Krishnamurti wrote to Rajagopal in 1985, Krishnamurti tells him: "You were complicit, you manipulated and encouraged the relationship between that woman and me."

Well, there's the answer: the relationship between Krishnamurti and Rosalind was fostered and manipulated by Rajagopal to control him, because that way he had an ace up his sleeve. As long as Krishnamurti accepted everything Rajagopal did, without interfering in the organization's finances, questioning irregularities, or confronting Rajagopal, then everything would be fine. But if Krishnamurti rebelled, then that secret would be used against him to destroy his reputation.

But Krishnamurti wasn't intimidated by the threats and took Rajagopal to court, something I'm sure they hadn't counted on. And then the Rajagopals pulled that secret out of their trunk.

And with that act, the Rajagopals showed their true colors: wolves in sheep's clothing. Several witnesses asserted that both Rosalind and Rajagopal were truly shameless, ambitious, and opportunistic. This is corroborated by other sources, including Scott Forbes, who gave an interview and confirmed this version of events.

They tried to bring down Krishnamurti, but Krishnamurti never pretended to be a saint, never claimed to be celibate, never taught against sex, never claimed to be superior to anyone, nor did he claim to be holier than anyone else, that is undeniable.

On several occasions he said, "I feel like I'm here on this stage, in this little chair, just for convenience so we can talk better."

That doesn't mean she's superior to anyone, but look at the positive side of that event: Rosalind demystified the image of the enlightened, perfect, and pure saint, above human desires, because, in reality, all that is nothing more than a false notion of enlightenment.

That relationship, in fact, humanized him, brought him down from his pedestal, bringing him closer to the real human being, with all his flaws and imperfections.

Ah yes, and despite all this, Krishnamurti undoubtedly found light and peace, so the gates of heaven are open to all humanity, regardless of their sins, defects, and limitations.

Thank you very much, may God be with you, and until next time.

Epilogue

The former foundation, Krishnamurti Writings Inc., remained under Rajagopal's control. Krishnamurti created another one without him. So he, the secretary, continued to retain the legal rights of the former organization.

Following Krishnamurti's death, the two organizations reached a legal agreement. Rajagopal retained certain documents, rights, and assets of Krishnamurti Writings Inc., which he claimed belonged to him. 

COMMENTS

Handerson: Hi Alsibar. Is the story about the abortions true?

Alsibar:  Hello Handerson, yes, there were abortions, but it's impossible to know to what extent Krishnamurti was responsible. Mary Lutyens says in the book that they were miscarriages, and there was one that Rosalind decided to have on her own. Of course, Krishnamurti must bear some of the blame, but it's impossible to know for sure because the accounts differ. Best regards.

Alexandra: The very issue of abortion is inconceivable... Truly absurd. Radha's book is full of fabrications, half-truths, and distortions. The dispute over the rights to Krishnamurti's works left the Rajagopals in a state of perpetual resentment.

Alsibar:  Exactly, my friend. 

Helena: The question of "if he can, everyone can" doesn't make sense to me, especially because, as I understand it, all of this happened after his enlightenment, so those weren't prerequisites for him to achieve it, despite...

For me, the question about this supposed enlightenment remains. What good is it if the person continues to deceive themselves and can't even see others clearly? So, 25 years together and they haven't seen each other's true character?

I don't know, it seems very strange to me. We need faith to persevere on the path, a worthwhile faith, but sometimes, honestly, it seems to me that this supposed enlightenment is the greatest of illusions.

Seeing Krishnamurti, who sat in a wooden chair to speak the truth, refusing applause or anything, deceiving himself with a relationship with these people... well, I'm not even enlightened and I'm already bored to death. I don't know.

Alsibar:  Hi Helena, how are you?  With all due respect, please don't misunderstand, but you seem to be repeating the general discourse on enlightenment.

Helena, what is enlightenment? We don't know. We only know what religions, systems, and traditions tell us. And then we create an idealization. Enlightenment is beautiful, as shown in movies, depicted in literature, and even in sacred books; however, have we ever met a truly enlightened person?

What often happens is what's called "cognitive dissonance"—we spend our lives imagining what an enlightened person would be like, and so on. But when we meet them, we're disappointed. But is the problem really enlightenment, or our expectations, idealizations, and illusions?

An enlightened person can be so naive that they cannot see evil in others, since they do not carry it within themselves. Furthermore, if Krishnamurti were merely replicating the model of those morally and spiritually perfect "enlightened" people, who in fact are not, what new contribution would he make to the world?

Both "Christ in the Letters of Christ" and "Autobiography of a Yogi" present us with enlightened beings of flesh and blood, with their dramas, sorrows, anxieties, and disappointments. An enlightened person does not cease to be human, does not cease to feel disappointed, does not cease to feel...

Krishnamurti did not fail to become enlightened by falling in love with the wrong woman. On the contrary, through love, sex, and relationships, he was able to understand the human condition in its depth and complexity, and thus be able to speak about it.

I'm sorry you don't believe in enlightenment and consider it less valuable because of the problems Krishnamurti went through. Jesus also had to deal with various problems.

Enlightenment is the perception of the truth about the self that brings liberation from psychic suffering. That's all. But one also learns in relationships, in living with others. An enlightened person is always learning.

Warm greetings and thank you for your participation.

Roberto: Alsibar, excellent video. I had doubts due to my lack of knowledge, but I'm a reader and a great admirer of Krishnamurti's teachings. He, as an enlightened being, teaches not to be conditioned or bound by passion, pleasure, fear, etc. Would I participate in a love triangle?

Alsibar:  My friend Krishnamurti never spoke against pleasure. He did speak against attachment. He often spoke well of passion in its broadest sense: passion for life that does not exclude pleasure.

Passion in a relationship has nothing to do with conditioning. If it exists, it cannot be repressed: it is a fact, and one cannot escape it. Krishnamurti was young when he met her and fell in love with her. That was the fact. He overcame attachment by separating from her and fear by refusing to be intimidated by their threats and blackmail.

Regarding the love triangle: I already explained the reasons in the video. Hugs, my friend, and thanks for your participation!

Roberto: Wouldn't that be a great contradiction with your teachings? Because many teach, but very few practice, and we believe that those who practice are enlightened. Best regards!

Alsibar:  Honestly, I don't see any contradiction. If you watched the video, you'll understand that Krishnamurti fell into a kind of trap that he only realized when it was too late to get out.

Rajagopal not only accepted the relationship, but encouraged it. Only in this way would he have a trump card, which explains his extremely arrogant and abusive attitude toward Krishnamurti.

Roberto: As you mentioned above, I was young, something I later connected with and understood perfectly.

Alsibar: True... a "normal" young person is usually naive, immature, and gullible. Imagine an enlightened young person, full of light, love, and peace... But they had to go through this to learn about the evil in the world. Especially the kind that disguises itself as love and kindness, which is the worst and most dangerous of all! Even enlightened people learn and mature! 

Jerclei: What's strange is that someone like him would accept such a situation, and to me, that doesn't humanize an enlightened being. This shows that he wasn't enlightened, but rather a human being with a slightly higher level of evolution than others. This doesn't mean that what he said wasn't true. Thank you for your interpretation of the events. Light and Wisdom.

Alsibar: Hello Jerclei, what would an “enlightened” person be to you? 

Jerclei: My comment is not intended to address enlightenment; everything in Krishnamurti's life was controversial from the very beginning, starting with Annie Besant and Leadbeater. Later, he broke with them and embarked on a new path.

He certainly awoke, that's all, and his experiences are of great value to all of us on the path back to the home of the absolute. Light and Wisdom. Thank you.

Juan: In a way, this has a positive effect in preventing us from idealizing perfection in a man, even if he is supposedly enlightened.

CID OBSERVATION

Based on my research, I am inclined to believe that Alsibar's explanation is probably correct and that Krishnamurti was not the villain of this story, but to some extent the victim.

People mistakenly believe that enlightened individuals are already perfect, but in reality, they still have flaws. While I don't consider sex a flaw, nor do I believe that Krishnamurti's past relationship disqualifies him. His main mistake was entrusting his organization and finances to this individual.