Radha Sloss Book Lives In The Shadow Is Garbage

Reza Ganjavi on Radha Rajagopal Sloss's Garbage Book Lives In The Shadow

I wrote about Radha Sloss's garbage book in my 2014 circular but didn't mention it by name so as to not give it publicity. But now I see people like Jaap Sluijter, Rabindra Singh, Raman Patel, Nasser Shamim, Mina Masoumian, Bill Taylor, Antonio Autor, all of whom are part of Friedrich Grohe gang or his extended circle, and KFT Trustees Derek Hook, Wendy Smith, Gary Primrose, Mark Lee, etc. are doing more damage to K's legacy, in my opinion, than Radha Sloss ever could. So why not mention her. 

Radha Sloss was the daughter of Rajagopal (see my article on Jaap Sluijter where I claim Jaap is the worse thing that happened to Krishnamurti than even Rajagopal (https://www.rezamusic.com/writings/on-j-krishnamurtis-work/Why-Executive-Director-of-KFA-Jaap-Sluijter-Is-A-Disgrace-To-Krishnamurti). Krishnamurti had a long term affair with her mother, Rosalind Edith Rajagopal, (née Rosalind Edith Williams, 1903–1996). They were like family - the three of them - and Rajagopal was gone long periods at a time and was not having sex with Rosalind.   

Rosalind was a beautiful lady and her and K loved each other a lot - and I'm sure they had a great time. Some people were disappointed when the book came out because they had made a false image of K which showed they hadn't studied him. They were saying, oh he was against sex but he had sex. That's so untrue.  

My view of K actually improved because it was further evidence that he was a human - as well as a super human. See section on Albion Patterson below about K and sexy films.

K had told some close friends about this relationship. It's nobody's business anyway. Did you expect he would announce it in his annual talks? It's a personal matter.

Radha Sloss, waited till K died, because in most jurisdictions you can't defame a dead person, and she wrote a most horribly illogical book called "Lives in the Shadows". People liking tabloid were thrilled by it. She was so incredibly stupid in her arguments. It was clear she was trying to connect dots that didn't exist, in order to trash-talk K because of K's conflict with her dad - which wasn't about her mother but about K's publications which her father had stolen. 

It was no secret to people close to K that he had a long term relationship. He told some of his close friends about it. It's a private matter anyway. Radha's account on the other hand is not an expose, it is a nasty, malicious character attack of a man who is dead and can't defend himself.

Her book is filled with logical inconsistencies: conclusions that simply do not add up. A book by someone who totally missed the boat for those who've missed the boat and are looking to rationalize it. Radha wrote to me that ultimately because of freedom of speech she can say anything she wants. That's how she justified the logical inconsistencies!! Too bad she didn't have the guts to do that when K was alive.


March 13, 1994

While the book provides some good information about K, its bitterness makes one doubt its objectivity .For example, she claims that, "Total loss

of memory also entitled him to a claim of originality in all his teachings. " This suggests that K claimed that his teachings are all original. I don't remember him ever making such a claim. It also suggests the K's claim about the loss of memory was something he made up, which is

unsubstantiated and does not make sense. This is just one example of the type of arguments she


The book is full of illogical arguments

She makes the false claim that K's life was contradictory , "the devotees and adulation which he appeared to enjoy on one side of the globe while decrying them on the other. " Regardless of where he was K always asked not to be followed. Her statement assumes that he did not say in India that he did not want followers. He did say.

Here's another example of Radha's poor logic: She took K's statement, "I speak to live, I do not live to speak, if there were no more talks I would die, "and concluded that K needed an audience. I am speechless! She claims, "K has said he wants no followers, yet he encourages people to follow him around. " I like to know how and when he did that. Poor man for 65 years said, in English, "don't follow me."

The good thing about the book is that it showed that K was a human, and that made me respect him even more. It showed that he experienced everything he talked about. I don't find any hypocrisy in K. He never said don't have sex, don't be angry ...He said that he always lived without control and he said that celibacy is "not making images". It is sad that Radha tries to discredit such a great man. I guess she never understood him. Maybe when we don't understand the message, we concentrate on the man to find faults with him in order to justify our lack of understanding.


On March 21, 1994 I wrote to Radha Sloss. She answered 3 days later! On March 24, 1994 Radha Sloss wrote to me a stupid letter in which she basically said she said the garbage that she said about K because of freedom of speech (since K had died and could not speak for himself or sue her for defamation). She failed to address the gross logical inconsistencies in her book.

On 8 April 1994 I wrote Sloss back.



Loaded with fallacious logic

I read the book with interest and an open mind. The conclusions the author makes are often unfounded. There are some

interesting historical descriptions and the most important contribution of the book was to depict that K was actually a human -

and in my mind that made him even greater, because being a human he understood the human condition. But the author appears

to constantly want to attack K for being a human and many of her conclusions seem to be inaccurate and unfounded - at least

they are not presented with much solid logic.


The author's logic is as shaky as jello - her conclusions as loose as a raindrop. She obviously wants to get even and find healing for her self-inflicted psychological wounds by attacking J. Krishnamurti's personality. J. Krishnamurti never said "do not have sex". He said to be truly celibate is to have no image. Like so many who never understood him the author has no clue as to the beauty of that statement and instead condemns JK for having had sex with her mother. JK was a human. That's a big part of what made him great. People like the author first make of him a god  then shoot him down. He never put himself on a pedestal - you did. Your father was going off, abstaining from sex, to find god - meanwhile burning in desire - to be something - to be a J. Krishnamurti. Your father took J. Krishnamurti's writings and claimed them as his. How would you feel if your banker claimed your money as his?


There is order underneath apparent inconsistencies. That's what makes a human great. This only makes sense when you actually live it - when you see in your daily life that what appears to be inconsistent is in fact not. There is great order in the cosmos though to the superficial eye the starry sky appears chaotic.


When I challenged Mrs. Rajagopal to back her empty remarks and fallacious conclusions with factual evidence and logical examination, her only response was that due to the freedom of speech she can say whatever she wants - and who could argue with that?!