More on U.G...

[Guest guest]

Dear List,

 

Reading U.G. Krishnamurti's earlier books (he seems to have toned down

considerably in his later talks), I've discovered some interesting things -

 

(1) He contradicts himself repeatedly on subtle points. For example, he

denies the spiritual and claims that his " change " is entirely

physiological, yet also says that " matter " (which includes the physical

body) is a process of mind, and that the thought process only operates in

him in response to *external* stimuli. If his mind only works in response

to external stimuli, how can he know that his change is entirely

physiological (not spiritual), and how can he refer to physiology at all

(which is " matter, " and therefore created by thought)?

 

(2) In regard to (1), he claims no difference between inner and outer...

then how can he claim that his thought process responds only to *external*

stimuli (according to him there is no " external " or " internal " )?

 

(3) He makes the claim that there are no individual minds, but somehow the

mind operates as an " antenna, " picking up thoughts from what he describes

as a global " thought-sphere. " There are schizophrenic elements to this

sort of thinking, and again this contradicts his claim as to there being no

" inner " or " outer. "

 

(4) He holds a somewhat violent vendetta against J. Krishnamurti for his

" institutionalization " of himself. This directly contradicts his claim

that he has " thrown off his past entirely, " as far as I'm concerned, and

also contradicts the claim that he no longer operates on the basis of

memory (except for matters such as finding when the next bus arrives, etc).

Very opinionated for someone whose mind has essentially stopped working!

 

Although I find much of his writing (especially the later stuff)

refreshing, U.G. shows some of the signs and symptoms of schizo-affective

disorder. In keeping with Ken Wilber's claims that the mental and

spiritual realms develop along similar but different pathways, it's quite

probable that what we have here is an enlightened sage who is also a

depressive personality with schizo-affective disorder! There's too much

" lack of method " to his " madness " to come to any other conclusion.

 

His equating the physical body with ultimate reality (by claiming that the

body is " permanent " in light of its continuation in different forms after

death) yet denying any reality to the spiritual is just downright weird and

totally contradictory to any other " enlightened " person in history. At the

same time, he says (from the other side of his mouth) that there is no such

thing as permanency, and the very attempt by people to find permanency in

the midst of the constant change and flux of life is one of mankind's root

problems!

 

Any comments/opinions/thorazine donations from other list members?

 

With Love,

 

Tim

 

-----

Sum Ergo Sum

 

Visit " The Core " Website at http://coresite.cjb.net -

Music, Poetry, Writings on Nondual Spiritual Topics.

Tim's other pages are at http://core.vdirect.net