Talk:U. G. Krishnamurti/Archive 1

message: Heard through the grapvine that U.G. is no more. He's gone everyone. -Osmosys —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 71.142.65.90 (talk) 10:08, 18 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Death 

message: Also, in "Yet, he claims, and is said by some people to be "enlightened"" is not correct. I haven't read any statement of his where he says he is enlightened, only the oposite. This statement is also contradicted near the end of the page, "He swiftly gained a reputation as an enlightened person, though he always refused the label".
This text was also added to this wikipage at one point, and removed, since it replaced almost all of the previous text, but is very pertinent, because it sumarizes the main part of U.G.'s philosophy. Perhaps it could be reworked and inserted into the main text?:
"The main theme which emerges from the discussions with him is the impossibility and unnessecity of any human change, radical or mundane. U.G. repeats endlessly that the body and its actions are aldready perfect, and attempts to change or mold the body or its actions are pure and simple violence. The psyche or self or mind, an entity which he denies has any being, is composed of nothing but this demand to bring about change in either the material or in itself. The human self-conciousness is not a thing, but a movement, one characterized by perpetual malcontent and a "fascist" insistence on its own importance and survival."
I went ahead, and changed the page like I commented here. The only problem now could be that the language between this paragraph and the next on the wikipage are differently-styled. I think it is the next paragraph that should be re-worded and re-worked, but as it stands is also ok, I guess.
-- anon
I wonder if there is any corroboration of UG's meetings and dialogues with J Krishnamurti
I cant recall having seen UG's name mentioned in any of the biographies of JK.
Malcolm
I have added citations for the quotes. 
-- vishvas
the citations re: the meetings with jiddu krishnamurti are all from a single source, i.e. ug himself. i believe poster "malcolm" is implying there's no third party corroboration of these discussions,  as cited in the article.
Mr.e-i-b 17:06, 8 December 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  making the article consistent 

message: If the article specifically reads like a hagiography, which it does, it needs cleanup. Period. I would rewrite the article, but I have little to no doubt that you would cheerfully redact it, just as you have with the talk page.  V. Joe 18:14, 6 December 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Still POV problematic 

message: Wikipedia does have an arbitration policy, although it puzzles me as to what you would like to have arbitrated. Wikipedia:Arbitration Committee. Arbitrate away, I suppose. This article is, and remains a POV problem, and I'll edit it when I get around to it, I suppose V. Joe 18:30, 6 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Third opinion. The lead and introduction are definitely POV. I have added some inline messages to specify particular problems, but fixing these alone will not make the article NPOV. I suggest you read WP:NPOV#Fairness of tone and WP:NPOV#Characterizing opinions of people's work. Grouse 13:26, 7 December 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  POV/Third Opinion/Arbitration 

message: it is my understanding, reinforced by reading the article, that u.g. krishnamurti does not consider himself, neither cares whether other people consider him, a hindu, a religious persona in general, or even just a person with a certain message.
why then include him under the "hinduism" project? why the labeling/pigeonholing? it is true that he was born a brahmin, but that's like saying "he used to live in such and such address". well, now he's moved, and that's no longer an issue. the idea that some of what he says are common concepts of hinduism is irrelevant. people will often find commonalities where they look for them. he clearly states in several places in published works that he is who he is despite his heritage/experiences.
65.88.88.126 18:02, 7 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I'm the one who added the template.  Adding that template had nothing to do with the subject of the article, but with the article itself.  Adding project templates to articles is merely a means of actively seeking collaboration from interested editors.  Please keep that in mind.TheRingess 19:48, 28 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: understood. the question remains, why would people interested in hinduism be more actively sought to collaborate here than say, bird-watchers? i think it probable that ug has been in close proximity of a bird. what i'm really asking is, what is the criteria by which the wiki hinduism template was included in this article.Mr.e-i-b 17:57, 29 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Hmmmm...well it was my own criteria.  In other words, it seemed like a good idea at the time.  Keep in mind that the article can belong to multiple projects.  At the very least it belongs in WikiProject Biography.  Probably it also belongs in WikiProject India.  It can't hurt to belong to WikiProject Hinduism.  I'll leave it up to other interested editors to add it appropriate projects.TheRingess 20:13, 29 December 2006 (UTC)

text: that to me is irrelevant. i'm only discussing the applicability of templates and neutrality of classification in this section. agreed that there are major other issues with this article, but whether they are more serious than the templates is also a matter of opinion.Mr.e-i-b 17:26, 22 February 2007 (UTC)

text: You say potato, I say potato. TheRingess (talk) 17:43, 22 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: whatever. from the wiki-hinduism template: "This article is within the scope of WikiProject Hinduism, an attempt to promote better coordination, content distribution, and cross-referencing between pages dealing with Hinduism". where do you see anything "dealing with hinduism" in the article or the life of the subject to warrant this? just the fact that he was born a hindu is not enough. shouldn't classification decisions be made intelligently rather than just blindly assigning templates just because 1)it's easy and 2)the word "hindu" is in there?Mr.e-i-b 15:36, 10 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  why wiki-hinduism? 

message: I don't think the current intro quote in the beginning of the article is in any way representative of U.G. thought or what he generally transmits. It is just a collection of contradictory sentences that do not help the visitor to this article to have a first understanding of him. There may not be such a thing, but in that case it would be best not to put anything. I suggest we either put something more consistent, like a full quote that was actually said by U.G. himself, or we abstain from saying anything at all.Maziotis 20:43, 25 April 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Introduction quote 

message: May I simply say that it someone has cleaned this article and shown the man the respect he earned. For months it lied all messed up with what I call a cynical 'citation needed attack' interspersed throughout. Thankyou whoever it was. It looks good now. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 61.68.143.209 (talk) 12:56, 1 May 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Cleanup 

message: The above information is the information required for the footnote or numbered reference list.  I endeavoured to repair error and have left my insertion in state, to no benefit or ill.  Unfortunately, this advanced citation skill is at present beyond my ken. The error is still evident and in need of a fixative as per red text.
Walking my talk in Beauty
B9 hummingbird hovering (talk • contribs) 07:30, 6 October 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Loss of citation integrity due to carelessness of IPSOS 

message: I removed the other images as it didn't have the copyright information. I got permission to use this image from the creator, so don't delete as of yet until OTRS has their say. I've forwarded the confirmation email to them. --Kolrobie 11:59, 5 November 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  U. G. Krishnamurti image 

message: I removed it, as it added nothing new or relevant. UG thought that people such as Osho were crooks. Osho disagreed, and thought of UG as a crook in so many words. Big deal. There is no use for criticism in a bio entry anyway. The entry is about UG as a person, not a semi-academic examination of whatever philisophy he was expounding (if any) - except as ancillary to his personality and life. There's no need about a "balanced" entry that has to include blame, praise, and everything in between. Because every editor has a different sense of balance. It also doesn't matter whether or not he was lifting wholesale from Jiddu K. This is about what UG did and said, and he never claimed authorship, originality or ownership. These are attributes others attach to him or subtract from him.   —Preceding unsigned comment added by 65.88.88.173 (talk) 17:52, 4 May 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Removal of the Criticism section 

message: It does not work anymore, don't know why. The book I've quoted from is still online, this biography written by Mahesh Bhatt .
:Austerlitz -- 88.75.89.218 (talk) 13:38, 12 February 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Austerlitz -- 88.75.72.132 (talk) 14:30, 14 February 2008 (UTC)

text: Austerlitz -- 88.72.29.72 (talk) 09:46, 28 February 2008 (UTC)

text: Austerlitz -- 88.72.29.72 (talk) 09:50, 28 February 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  The Link in Notes No. 9 

message: i don't know that it is fitting to describe ug as a philosopher or speaker.  i also dont think we should use other peoples' impressions/quotes in the first paragraph.  perhaps we could just reference the 'natural state' as he called it.  shall i change it?
also i would think this artical needs more direct quotes, also is there a link to the relevant works on wikisource?
Rajpalrajpal (talk)
~  —Preceding unsigned comment added by Rajpalrajpal (talk • contribs) 00:03, 29 May 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: hi.  i think its a misrepresentation.  what you are saying is like saying that it is okay to give a tabloid representation to public figures.  did he have a non-philosophy philosophy etc or was this the projection of those who wrote about him?  likewise callng him a philosopher suggests he was talking from theoretical standpoint (e.g. like Kant) as opposed to talking from direct experience.  i am concerned that the opening is giving the wrong idea.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by Rajpalrajpal (talk • contribs) 23:03, 30 May 2008 (UTC)
replies: text:  We have no way of knowing whether he was talking from "direct experience". And as the editor above said, these matters are not the purview of a wikipedia entry. As was posted above, we do have a right to categorize the subject for the purposes of wikipedia. UG was concerned and spoke at length publicly about matters that a sizable number of "philosophers" (religious and secular) have discussed since the beginning. Therefore, a "philosopher". His particular philosophy has no bearing in the way he's categorized.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 155.212.121.243 (talk) 00:37, 1 June 2008 (UTC)

text:  If I may, I'd like to add that the article makes clear the broad outlines of UG's thinking. I think that an average person can tell for themselves by reading the article, whether UG's characterization as "philosopher" is literal, or just an adequate (but not perfect) fit for descriptive purposes.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 155.212.121.243 (talk) 00:47, 1 June 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  describing UG 

message: I think a few things should be added about UG's personality, info cited/sourced to people who knew him well. There must be objective ways to do this without direct quotes proclaiming what a great man or what a low scoundrel he was. For example, I read a blog entry from somebody who knew him for years, and this person was describing how during the last years of his life UG was becoming senile, repetitive and obsessed with Krishnamurti. Also, others describe him as posturing, generous, preening, gentle etc etc often in the same sentence. I know there are many places one can find this info on the net. I just think that there must be a neutral way to add some of that in this entry. I would say as part of the "Post-Calamity" section, since that's when most people started knowing him and that's when he really came up expressing his philosophy.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.105.155.141 (talk) 23:53, 9 May 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  UG's personality 

message: Maybe that all his books are online, I don't know. Put them there, too.
*The Courage to Stand Alone, Conversations with U.G. Krishnamurti, Amsterdam, September 1982, Transcribed and Edited by Ellen Chrystal, Original tapes produced and edited by Henk Schonewille
like I put this one.
:Austerlitz -- 88.72.30.86 (talk) 17:51, 20 June 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Since a number of his books, including the one you're refering to, appear in Wikisource verbatim, I don't understand what is all the fuss about?? Btw, I invite any of you to help clean up this book on Wikisource as per the Wikipedia guidelines: []. Also needs to be added verbatim: "The Natural State". Thank you.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.105.155.141 (talk) 22:37, 20 June 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  @Maziotis 

message: I strongly dislike your way of acting and your arguments, very unbuddhist.
:Austerlitz -- 88.75.80.152 (talk) 11:52, 24 June 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Austerlitz -- 88.75.90.34 (talk) 22:19, 24 June 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  @Maziotis 

message: Estranged? Are you kidding? You know nothing of UG's relationship with me. UG and I have been in close contact for much longer than you would know; my children have known him and of his affection from the time they were little, really little.Muppaluri (talk) 03:50, 8 March 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  UG's Son on UG's Family Connections... 

message: didnt she meet with U.G. and subsequently become disillusioned by her son Andrew Cohen the spiritual teacher? unless this is one of many such written documentations on encounters with U.G. i think it would be appropriate to add here, as its a published account, and relates directly to his "teachings" and their effect on her and the process of spiritual development from having a leader to being more independent. has this been debated already? i think it can be added without POV, just sourced and noted.Mercurywoodrose (talk) 22:52, 23 June 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Luna Tarlow 

message: There are several instances in the article where uncited statements re: Jiddu Krishnamurti are made. Proof needed template Template:Fact is appropriate. Other statements are not easily verifiable and come from a single source, U.G. himself. In this case, nonspecific/unverifiable template is appropriate: Template:Unverifiable. This is done as an incentive to  either provide proper, reliable sources, or to remove/modify the so-called information. Thank you.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 65.88.88.127 (talk) 16:23, 10 April 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  J Krishnamurti 

message: At the very outset, the article says: "U G Krishnamurti was a sage who talked about his enlightened openly." UG himself would have had deep reservations about such a claim. He debunked such notions as enlightenment and would have been the last person to have wanted someone to call him a sage. I suggest that this be edited properly.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by Amanmalik2010 (talk • contribs) 13:20, 17 October 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  UG, a sage? Enlightened?