She commented yesterday: “Paramananda and others say that he (J.K.) has one ‘dosh’ (fault): While his way is certainly valid he does not accept the validity of approaches other than his own —which is one of vichara [self-inquiry].” I feel very happy that She met him, it seems to make everything so much easier for me. I need not explain anything to Her.”

In her authoritative biography of J. Krishnamurti, Pupul Jayakar describes the meeting between Krishnamurti and Anandamayee which took place in the Delhi home of Kitty Shiva Rao.

“They met in the garden, as the mother never entered the home of a householder. She did not speak English, and spoke through a translator (Krishnamurti no longer spoke any Indian language). She had a radiant smiling presence. She said that she had seen a photograph of Krishnamurti many years before and knew that he was very great”.

A description of the conversation already narrated by Atmananda follows with the difference that Anandamayee Ma has the last word, gently insisting that in the act of setting himself up as a public spiritual authority, he cannot avoid the responsibility of being a Guru, the very thing he rails against. After this: “He held her hand gently and did not answer.”

Pupul Jayakar continues: “Many visitors came and prostrated themselves at the feet of J.K. and Anandamayee Ma. Anandamayee Ma accepted their greetings, but Krishnaji was embarrassed. As always he would not permit them to bow down but sprang to his feet and bent down to touch the feet of the seeker of blessing. Later after Anandamayee left, Krishnaji spoke of her with warmth and affection.

There had been communication, though much of it had been wordless.” Anandamayee Ma was always extremely respectful and deferential in the presence mahatmas, often referring to herself as a simple, uneducated child. But this did not in anyway however inhibit her from asking them direct and penetrating questions, particularly if she did not agree with them on a particular point. In this description of their meeting, and particularly in the portrayal of their different responses to dealing with the public, is revealed an essential difference between Anandamayee Ma and J. Krishnamurti.

Anandamayee Ma made no distinction whatsoever between herself and those bowing before her. She saw everything as “God interacting with God” as she would sometimes say. In any case, to bow before a respected and revered figure in India is as common a gesture of elementary respect as shaking hands in the West. Anandamayee Ma had no desire to do away with tradition but on the contrary wanted to revitalize it, bringing out the fundamental spirituality upon which it was originally based.

She often pointed out that in the act of bowing down (making pranam), particularly to an exalted spiritual personage, a profound transmission of spiritual energy takes place —something utterly beyond the mind that is the antithesis of anything debasing or humbling. But whereas she is in a state of absolute non-duality, aware only of the all-pervading Divinity in herself and others, Krishnamurti is self-conscious here, ‘embarrassed ‘, admitting to a sense of separation, no matter how genuinely humble and humanistically expressed, between himself and others.

Taken from “Death Must Die”, the diaries of Atmananda, edited and commented upon by Ram Alexander.

From Shree Shree Ma Anandamayee Prasang, by Amulya Kumar Dutta Gupta.

November 1948.
During conversation the topic of Shree Krishnamurthy was raised. Ma said ‘This
time I met Krishnamurthy in Delhi. Just as your Chhotoma says that nothing will be
gained by taking the name of Hari, Durga etc, and that the only name Ma is effective,
similarly Krishnamurthy says that diksha received from a guru, the japa of God’s
name, etc are in vain and that the only way to get result is rational analysis. One has
to carry on rational analysis always in one’s own mind. If any question arises in the
mind one should immediately try to find an answer to it by reading books or by
approaching knowledgeable persons. Liberation will come only by incessant
reasoning in this manner and not by any other way. I said to him, “Baba, will you
not be the guru to those who would follow the path shown by you? “He said “There
should be the bhava of being a disciple” I said, “If there is a disciple there will also
be a guru”. He did not say anything in reply to this.

But you already know it is said that there is no opposition between anyone and this body; this
too is the manifestation of a particular state(referring to what Krishnamurthy had said); from
what level such ideas had emerged was quite clear to me.”

Me: If a person has a question in his mind for the solution of which he has to
approach someone then the person who provides the solution will become the
guru of the questioner.
Ma: They believe that it is not necessary to regard a person as one’s guru even if the
person offers a solution to one’s question. Look, for example, suppose you are
going on the road; all of a sudden a dog begins to bark loudly; you start at the
sudden noise, look at the dog and find that the dog had begun barking excitedly
on spotting a snake on the road. Had the dog not barked you would have
stepped right on the snake. So you see the dog has the credit of saving your life
by a timely warning. In view of this you may regard the dog as your guru but
in general in such cases people do not regard such a helper as their guru. Like
this even in case they receive solutions to their queries from somebody they are
not ready to accept him as their guru.