The book is a wonderful entry into the world of Jiddu Krishnamurti. Stuart Holroyd at times does wax hagiographic -- but that cannot be helped from one so close to his/her subject.

Holroyd brings Krishnamurti alive in a not so in-your-face approach that allows the reader to get into (as much as possible from a biography -- rather than an autobiography) the subject in all his deceptive simpleness. Don't let the writer fool you -- Jiddu Krishnamurti is as complex a character you will ever read about. The book is somewhat chronological in its configuration but later yields to a topical format. The first part is insightful as it gives you an idea about the man. The second part is illuminating because it gives the reader an idea about the thoughts of J. Krishnamurti.

I highly recommend this book for the curious and for the novice (but do not stop with this....). Far from being comprehensive, it is wonderful for its exploratory powers.

Miguel Llora

penetrating discussions as to holistic observation and why clear perception is intelligence.

Interesting book. I liked this book. It is hard to apply though. It all seems to make sense when you read the book, but then when you want to apply his teachings in moments of fear, it doesn't seem to help. Maybe I need to give it more time.

This book is for all thoes who suffer from fear and anxiety. Who does that leave out? On Fear, is a collection of Krishnamurti's very profound observations and thoughts on how our society engenders fear with the competitive education we recieve and with our ambitious approach to life. He also points out that a mind that is afraid, cannot know peace or love. Krishnamurti suggests that only a fundamental realization of the root of all fear can free our minds. For thoes people seeking a deeper understanding into the psychology of fear, its contributing societal factors and how to deal with it, this book is very enlightening.

Though I like Krishnamurti's work in general, this is a [weak] one. Since he is anti-organization, anti-teacher he dimisses all the mystics and spiritual teachers who ever lived. They don't know but since I'm free of all that dogma and rigid teachings I know best sums up Krisnamurti's thought on god. This borders on egomania. Sadly by lowering the topic to such a low level of discourse he makes himself no better than any new age kook. Since he had no method per se and dismisses any sort development of higher level perceptions he puts himself in a box all alone. It's too bad his experience with Theosophy ruined his opinion of teachers and organizations.

This book could perhaps stand as signpost as too how far rational thinking can take a person. Get the book if you're interested and then get Underhill's "Mysticism" and Helminski's "Living Presence". Compare them and see who has a better understanding of spirituality and God.

Yes, it is a good book. The only problem I have with it is that Krishnamurti is not willing to investigate world religions. He just ASSUMES that they are all wrong. I'm not saying that they are right, but a true scientist must be open to all possibilities. K is obviously not. He brings all his ideas to a level that is so low, that no one can possibly argue with him. He never read anything and so it is easy for him to criticize all the great thinkers. He never read St. Thomas Aquinas so I wonder how he would be arguying about Thomas' five proofs of God's existence. But he doesn't want to deal with all of that, so he just brings everything to an incredibly low level where only he is right. He also rejects all mystics, knowing that there have been mystics in all religions since the beginning of man.

I like Krishnamurti. There is a lot of good stuff in what he teaches. But his method of finding the truth is not always very scientific.

This book (one in a series where Krishnamurti goes deeply into several topics critical to mankind) will mainly be of intrest to people who are already familiar with Krishnamurti's basic philosophy/teachings. Krishnamurti uses many words with specific definitions (specific to himself & used throughout his works) that people might not understand if they don't go deeply into particular subjects. This book helps clarify & define several of them. In a nut-shell, Krishnamurti states "How can anyone find God (the unknown) through the known? All one will find is their own thought's known projections. So to know God (if that's possible), one cannot approach God through the known; through knowledge." This is part of a larger thought of his, which is: don't believe in anything. Don't believe at all. If something comes to you as-is, on its own, fine. But any seeking...through prayer, thought, traditional types of yoga/meditation, or whatnot, is futile, as you will only find the known. Only when one stops seeking, is it possible for God, Truth, Reality, Enlightenment...call it what you will...to come to one. This, like all of Krishnamurti's works, will be of intrest to existentialists, as he states somewhere/everywhere (I've read so many of his works I've forgotten where!): "Truth is a pathless land. You can't follow another to get there, and none can follow you once you've reached it yourself." If you dig Krishnamurti, get it.

The title of this book indicates that Krishnamurti had an "outer" and an "inner" life, the latter to be reveal by the author. However, it was my impression that this book is merely restatement of the old agendas of the Theosophical Society in Krishnamurti packaging, to wit: the Theosophical Society is the crucible of all esoteric knowledge; the T.S. was annointed by "Masters" unrecognized by any other faith but believed by them to rule the affairs of the world and to "save" said world; Krishnamurti was the second coming of Christ (called the Buddha Maitreya by the T.S.) appointed and trained by the Masters as the only means of world salvation in this age. Additionally, he was the sole beneficiary of the highest initiation process ever performed on a human. The author invites "positive" criticism of his ideas, but cautions that since his research is based in "fact" only, that he has no viewpoint to debate. To those who find elitist theologies appealing, this book will be intriguing.

One of the main goals in the founding of the Theosophical Society
was not only to revive lost ancient teachings, but moreover to point to
a unity of the deeper, esoteric traditions of all religions. Theosophy
posits that there is a perennial wisdom that spans all true spiritual
teachings across time, and that there are certain Masters who help guide
humanity in its evolution back to the One. A true Theosophist seeks to
find common ground among seemingly disparate teachings. As the author
proves both in what he writes as well as his point of view throughout
this very fine book, finding the unity and explaining occult teachings
in everyday language actually points to the Source of esoteric wisdom.

Mr. Sanat attempts to show in "The Inner Life of Krishnamurti" that
not only was K one of the perennial teachers himself, but that he was
undeniably guided and aided, throughout his life, by the Masters of
wisdom identified by the early Theosophists. I feel that Mr. Sanat
proves this main point very well, no matter what the critics are
saying. He cites quote after quote to back up his contention, statements
that K himself said at different points in his life, incl. comments made
long after he supposedly renounced his ties to the Masters, and the author
also uses references from authors who wrote about K and yet wanted nothing
to do with Theosophy. For example, on pp. 124-6 he cites P. Jayakar's book
on K for a vivid account account of K's initiation by the Masters.

In addition to proving that K did not deny the existence of the
Masters in his life, Mr. Sanat also definitively answers the question why
K would almost never talk about these matters in public. Perhaps the best
passage is on p. 186: "In other words, what he attacked was not the
esoteric itself, but the way people took as lightweight and frivolous
- as mere belief and opinion - what to him were serious and sacred."
As well clearly K, as H.P. Blavatsky before him, wanted to stress was
that seeking knowledge and powers w/o transforming the mind and soul, was
meaningless, an extension of the "me."

Mr. Sanat has a thorough understanding of K's teachings, and this
book can be read just to enforce and expand one's own understanding
of the perennial wisdom, regardless of one's feelings about Masters, the
occult, etc. In my opinion the best chapter is Chapter Eight, "Ecce
Homo." Mr. Sanat discusses authority, relationships, the tricky concept
"the observer is the observed," and other subjects, clearly and
from deep inspiration.

Another dimension to the unity of concepts discussed here are
illuminating discussions from a wealth of sources, like Nietzsche
("Superman"), Heidegger (authenticity), and many other books
such as "The Reimagination of the World." I have observed
that many followers of K are apt to dismiss any analysis of K
and unifying his teachings with others because to them "K and
only K is it." For those willing to synthesize across
a range of other sources, a deeper understanding can be achieved, and I
compliment the author highly for what he does in this area.

This is not a perfect book- few are. My main disagreement is Sanat's
contention that K was a successor to HPB - no way! Nevertheless the book
is an inspiring read, of a writer who embodies the Theosophical ideals
of searching for truth, and trying to unify rather than divide.

This book is an extraordinary achievement, since it shows, for the first time ever, the very real connection there is between the theosophical movement and Krishnamurti, as well as between Krishnamurti and the ancient perennial wisdom. Sanat does this not by speculating or spinning unsupported opinions (as has been done quite dishonestly by some of his reviewers below). He achieves this by appealing by actual historical facts, by actually quoting what K REALLY said (as opposed to OPINIONS some people have formed without reference to FACTS). This is, so far, the ONLY book on Krishnamurti that addresses these issues without preconceptions, but by quoting sources and giving precise references, and by appealing to what actually happened.
Unlike every other author on this subject to date, Sanat lets his reader know when he is offering his own personal perceptions of the many facts that he marshals. When he does that, it is clear that he bends over backwards to let the reader come to his/her own conclusions.
It is unfortunate that some reviewers, who have obviously some pet theory to defend, have misrepresented the real worth of this excellent piece of research. I am particularly intrigued by the fact that the first "two" reviewers sent their messages within two days of "each other," and say pretty much the same thing. One of "them" was from "San Felipe, CA," & "the other" claims to be from New Mexico, yet does not know how to spell his own hometown, calling it "Albuquerqui." Then there is yet another reader from San Felipe, CA, writing three years later, but saying pretty much the same thing! I smell a rat!
If you are serious about understanding who K was, please do yourself a favor, and read this book. But do so with an open mind. What Sanat has achieved here is almost like solving a Zen koan: What K said was simultaneously compatible with the best that the perennial wisdom has taught throughout the ages, yet at the same time was breaking new ground, by showing us the dire need to disassociate ourselves COMPLETELY from all identifications, such as with Buddhism & Advaita Vedanta, before there can be clarity in our lives. Sanat has done a magnificent job, in showing with astonishing clarity that what has been considered incompatible, is actually eminently compatible. In doing this, he has placed K in a proper historical setting, something that had never been done before by anyone, because in order to do that, one must do the enormous work it must have taken for him to have been able to achieve this.
Contrary to what some reviewers have said, Sanat has shown how and why what really matters is that each of us engage in a transformative lifestyle. K's status, or lack thereof, is absolutely irrelevant in that quest. THAT is what Sanat makes crystal clear, unsupported criticisms of his work notwithstanding.
So do read the book. But be prepared to do a great deal of research yourself (like Sanat has done), before coming to conclusions based on previous knowledge. This book is a genuine creative effort, and deserves being read with a genuinely open mind.

In an attempt to burst the Krishnamurti bubble with this book, Radha Sloss doesn't sound very convincing and her insight on many things seems to be quite shallow. For example, when Krishnamurti mentions to her that Alduous Huxley's mind was like a dust bin, instead of seeing the truth of it, she represents this incident in a cynical manner. The way she judges Krishnamurti however casts a shadow on the other main issues as well i.e. his clandestine relationship with Rosalind. In many passages it seems that she deliberately tries to distort facts. An earlier reviewer mentions that Mary Lutyens knew about this relationship. Strange, she should have mentioned it in her books. (I haven't read her "Krishnamurti and the Rajgopals".) What the truth is one shall never know. But with this book, Mrs. Sloss has definitely taken the salt out of Krishnamurti believers, whether they admit it or not. They may rationalize, disagree or ignore the contents of the book but the seed of skepticism is well and truly sown. Perhaps Krishnamurti would have been happy with this posthumous publication as he always maintained that it is the teachings that matter and not the teacher. He despised any cult following after his death and this book would probably do just that.

Radha Rajagopal Sloss's unique book is something of an unofficial biography of 20th century philosopher J. Krishnamurti and the events surrounding his career as a religious/philosophical teacher. The daughter of Rosalind Williams Rajagopal and husband D. Rajagopal, Radha Rajagopal Sloss's book is not a sordid expose, it is not graphic or insulting. It is simply a sincere account of her very real experiences growing up in amazing circumstances among amazing people. There is a lot of information here which isn't included in "official" biographies of philosopher J. Krishnamurti, which helps the reader get a better idea of the politics and humanness which even great men may be affected by. Author Sloss in fact, mentioned this tendancy of official biographies to ignore or excuse certain parts of Krishnamurti's life as a reason for penning this work.

Some of the controversy this book generated is due to the fact that certain students and followers of Krishnamurti believe that he was a living example of a perfect human. This volume disspells that myth, indeed, he looks quite human throughout this writing. It was interesting to find how Krishnamurti dealt with some of his biggest stressors, including financial disagreements with friend D. Rajagopal, and the pregnancy (by him) of his dear lover Rosalind Williams Rajagopal. Radha describes her love of "Krinsh" (Krishnamurti), who was like a second father to her, and how his increasing unwillingness to deal with problems damaged many relationships and people. Included are numerous letters to and from Krishnamurti, D. Rajagopal and Rosaling Rajagopal, and numerous other individuals who were active on the Theosophical movement or Krishnamurti's teachings. A very worthwhile read for anyone with an interest in history, philosophy, or the full history of J. Krishnamurti.

Howdy,This book is very interesting indeed. Of course no one can say for sure if the book is correct or not but given that the Rajagopals knew Krishnamurti as well as anyone on earth I think there is grounds to give credibility to Mrs. Sloss' account. I've asked the Krishnamurti Foundation of America about the book. Their response wasn't "the book is a lie" but rather their response was "K's personality wasn't important, what he taught was important". They told me once K was asked "are you living the teachings yourself", K's response was "how would you know?"As a long time admirer of Krishnamurti I can say that these sorts of answers are unacceptable. Krishnamurti soooo many times would speak about the transcendent state of chastity and then say "these are not the problems of the speaker, these are your problems."Well, it seems like they were the problems of the speaker. If he had been honest about where he was in his grounded life with all of this I could be more accepting, but he wasn't. This, at least in part, makes Krishnamurti a hypocrit and makes me question everything else he has written. If K wasn't living his own teachings, is it any wonder he seemed to never find any of his "students" living them either.All "friends" of Krishnamurti owe it to themselves to read this book, in fact I consider it the most important book about Krishnamurti written because it dares to step outside of the carefully crafted Krishnamurti mystique. If the man can't walk the talk, how could he expect anyone else to. I don't judge him for his womanizing, I do feel that the "persona" he crafted over 60 years was, to be blunt, a partial lie. If his personality isn't important than neither are his insights about our personalities. No teacher's teaching is greater than the teacher's ability to actualize or "walk" the teaching.This has really burst my bubble about J. Krishnamurti, I always thought he was one of the ones carrying the flame, but alas his flame wasn't nearly as bright as we thought.Peace,John ( John-on-Maui@webv.net )

Dreary style makes for bad reading. There are other better titles on the same subject(s). I can't help thinking Powell comes across as pompous sometimes.

We see in your list that Robert Powell narrates many of your books. It is imperative for us to contact him to invite him to a celebration in Jerusalem. Please advise us how to contact him. Thanks

Reading this book was pretty much a waste of time. Krishnamurti is a brilliant speaker & crystal-clear author, but in this collection of dialogues & writings, it seems that the publisher is intentionally trying to shroud simplicity in a guru's mist. The cover of the book, a black background with Krishnamurti's disembodied head floating in the middle, is fairly representational of this work. A thinker's simple thoughts are edited so that one gets a mysterious impression of what should be simply clear. Trying to make him a mystical guru ruins his work & message. This book was obviously intended to be targeted to those seeking "generic Eastern wisdom." Definately the worst Krishnamurti title I've ever read.

This is a different way of presenting the ideas of J. Krishnamurti, and while the setting should have worked, it doesn't.

This time, Krishnamurti's philosophy is presented in the form of a conversation between him and a devoted questioner. I hoped that the deeper delving into the subjects central to the man's philosophy would tell more than it did. But instead, there seems to be more contradiction, and not nearly the clearness to be found in his other books.

Even so, this book definitely deserves three stars. There's definitely that of value here. It's just unfortunately disturbed.

Those who have become more immersed in Krishnamurti will without doubt find more of value here than those who have just discovered him.

Definitely not a worthless book, just one to set aside until you know the author better through his other works.

Of all the people who ever shared his thoughts on the subject, Krishnamurti always remained adamant about one thing: all following perverts the follower. There is no saviour but oneself. No religions, beliefs or gurus matter, only the truth that you yourself discover. And as usual, a group of weak-minded followers decide to guru-ify Krishnamurti, to the very antithesis of all that he ever had to say. Ingram seems to fins an almost unreal significance in K.'s most trivial activities. In one chapter, he write that he was "delighted" when he discovered K. reading a joke book, rather than "real" literature. I can only imagine what would have happened if Krishnamurti had said something like, "Oh, drat, my shoes are untied". I can just hear Ingram's response: "And then the full force of the true meaning of this statement struck me; this is a perfect exampleof how Krishnaji was always awake to the present moment, and the singinficance of Krishnaji's untied shoes never left me." Jiddu Krishnamurti was a man who basically came up with the philosophy of Zen Buddhism up all on his own, but he excelled at practicing it far more than the Zen monks, who seem to be more rule-bound that most other religious orders. Although unique in that he empahsised that each and everyone of us has to find out for onself, his followers cannot resist turning him into a guru, some sort of god-man, which perverts the most basic ideas that he tried to impart. The man who wrote the book obviously got nothing from K.'s ideas or else he would have regarded him as less a teacher and himself as more the teacher, but he turns everythiung Krishnamurti ever stood for and turns it in its head. On the other hand, it does offer one a glimpse into the personal, informalside of Jiddu Krishnamurti and maybe worth a perusal for that. But the author was as blind as can be . . . don't use this as your guidebook on Krishnamurti's thought, it is completely the antithesis of what Jiddu always tried to get across.