As others have pointed out, "Krishnamurti and the Rajagopals" is Mary Lutyens' reply to Radha Sloss' book and adds more to the picture of Krishnamurti. Indeed, it adds so much more that one must consider why Lutyens' original biography of Krishnamurti was so incomplete. The original biography did not mention Krishnamurti's sex life and his adulterous affair. That book was very detailed, so space wasn't an issue. The current book reveals that this was a huge part of his life, yet Lutyens ignored it in the original biography. Why?
Lutyens' excuses for not including Krishnamurti's adultery with Rosalind Rajagopal in the original biography are disingenuous. She writes, "I… did not realize that Rosalind wanted her adultery broadcast to the world." This is a lame excuse. The more likely reason is that she didn't want Krishnamurti's adultery broadcast to the world. She wanted his image to remain untarnished. Indeed, later in this book we see another Krishnamurti follower - Mary Zimbalist - protecting him in a similar way (see a few paragraphs below).
In her original biography of Krishnamurti, Lutyens feigned dismay at Rajagopal's bad behaviour towards Krishnamurti. But imagine Rajagopal's point of view. Krishnamurti presented himself on stage as being spiritually and morally superior and he let others treat him as special, yet all along Rajagopal knew Krishnamurti was having an affair with his wife. Ding, ding, ding! Of course, he is going to behave "badly" towards Krishnamurti. How can Lutyens say she doesn't understand Rajagopal's behaviour? Why did Krishnamurti approve a biography that presents such a patently false dismay?
Regarding Krishnamurti's celibate image, I have heard people say, "Of course, he had a normal sex life." On the other hand, I have heard others say, "Of course, he was celibate." So it seems that people were projecting both views and that Krishnamurti let the issue remain ambiguous so that he could have it both ways. He would have been happy to be seen as sexually cool in the swinging 60s, and he would have been happy to be remembered as a celibate saint. After all, he was supposed to be the Lord Maitreya incarnate, and the Lord Maitreya doesn't have sex with lowly mortals, does he?
Back in the day, I searched every book Krishnamurti wrote for clear statements about his sex life and his spiritual experiences. Notably, both topics were treated in a vague way. The closest I could find to a clear statement on his sex life was when he once answered a sex question with, "I wouldn't know." From that, I concluded that he was claiming to be celibate. Nevertheless, Lutyens writes in the present book, "I have always stressed that Krishnamurti was physically a perfectly normal man." That is untrue. Firstly, she claimed repeatedly that he was uniquely special. Indeed, in the original biography she wrote:
"Mary had made Marpessa's choice, yet it was with a sense of betrayal that she married her mortal; not betrayal of K, who, she knew, had no personal need of her or of any other individual, but betrayal of the view from the mountain top he had shown her."Clearly, she was portraying him as being beyond mere mortal interests such as marriage and sex. Secondly, if she "always stressed that Krishnamurti was physically a perfectly normal man", then why is his non-celibacy a revelation to so many people who have read the original biography?
One commenter here said that s/he doubts that Krishnamurti tried to cover up the affair. Yet we have clear evidence to the contrary - most obviously, Krishnamurti approved the biography that covered up the affair! And I suspect that Krishnamurti didn't push Rajagopal in their legal battles because he knew that Rajagopal was ready to expose him as an adulterer. Similarly, Lutyens didn't directly attack Rajagopal in the biography because she didn't want Rajagopal to return fire with information about the adultery. But once the information about the adultery was out, Lutyens let loose in the current book because there was no false image of Krishnamurti left to defend.
I believe that the reason Lutyens wrote this book was to defend Krishnamurti by attacking Rajagopal, and to justify herself for not including these issues in the original biography, but it backfires because we learn so much new disturbing information. One example is that we see Krishnamurti freaking out in a most unenlightened way. He calls the Rajagopals "evil, dirty" - and don't forget he just had an adulterous affair with one of these "evil, dirty" people. Another example is that we see the blind devotion of his followers. Immediately following his freak out, Mary Zimbalist wrote in her diary:
"I said I had one motive from the very beginning: to protect him and the teachings, to see that what he wants done happens. He said that wasn't enough, 'You are part of me, you must see and feel this in the same way.' He was making it clear that he wants to end the dispute and that in itself counts totally for me. ...At one point he said, 'I would grovel to end this'."Isn't that shocking? Obviously he was panic-stricken. He was afraid to let his spiritual image and spiritual career collapse. And while he was freaking out and demanding that Zimbalist's view be replaced by his view, instead of re-evaluating him, she said her one motive is to protect him and the teachings. That is an astounding response. Presumably, many other insiders had the same overriding desire to blindly protect him. Clearly, that desire to protect Krishnamurti resulted in the hiding of many unpleasant facts about him.
I agree that Sloss' book was dreadful, but at least it forced Lutyens to fill out her hagiography of Krishnamurti with some earthy truth. It forced her to spill the beans on The World Teacher's adultery, the freak-out described above, and the blind obedience of his followers. One wonders how many other famous spiritual leaders throughout history have benefited from having hagiographers like Lutyens to polish their images? It is ironic that Krishnamurti's main message was to not follow others but he surrounded himself with blind devotees who idolised him and "the teachings" and he demanded that their views be replaced by his views.
Although I don't expect spiritual teachers to be perfect, I do expect their biographers to be honest since biographies often create the enduring image of their subjects. "Krishnamurti and the Rajagopals" fills out Krishnamurti's image and also reveals the deluded mindset of his main biographer and his close followers.