Andrew/UG Krishnamurti

[Guest guest]

At 07:57 PM 2/9/2000 -0400, you wrote:

>andrew macnab <a.macnab

 

>He also tells people to go away, that they don't want what happened to

him, >and makes some wierd claims about his physical body like saying

somewhere that >he never blinks but has tear ducts that operate differently

from other people >to keep his eyes moist. He can't blink because he's so

completely in the >moment if I remember right.

 

None of this is what's " disturbing " about his talks (he could very well be

right about the tear duct thing); rather, what is disturbing is that he

claims that there is nothing beyond the physical; that the physical

organism and the physical world are all there is (and that conditioning

interferes with the smooth functioning of that organism). He seems to know

nothing of and mention nothing of awareness at all as being prior to the

physical.

 

>I think his intent is to offend the seeker, to stop the activity of

running to >one spiritual authority or another looking for THE ANSWER.

>He makes his answers, " we are robots " etc. unattractive unacceptable and

>unpleasant so that the questioner will not try to imitate him but will be

>forced to find her own answer for herself in herself. At the same time he

is >quite credible in his undermining and refutation of other gurus.

 

That would imply that he has " an agenda, " which he maintains is quite

impossible, being that he doesn't think except in response to " external

stimuli! "

 

>He also says that communication is impossible.

 

.... and that the human race is doomed, end of story... and that the brain

acts as " an antenna picking up thought from the 'thought sphere'. "

 

Nothing he says about other gurus or conditioning or his physical

conditioning disturb me; rather, what I find disturbing is his weird,

backward view that the physical organism is " permanent, " and that " death is

impossible because the physical form continues after death as food for

other physical forms, thus perpetuating physicality. " That's his idea of

permanence (while at the same time denying absolutely that there is

anything permanent). He's completely stuck at the level of the physical,

and quite possibly " out of his mind " in more than one sense!

 

I can't help but speculate that his " enlightenment " was actually some sort

of regression, rather than a transcendence.

 

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

[Guest guest]

Tim Gerchmez wrote:

<snip>

> I can't help but speculate that his " enlightenment " was actually some sort

> of regression, rather than a transcendence.

>

> With Love,

>

> Tim

>

 

Completely mad quite likely. But people are attracted to gurus who express wise

and

profound thoughts and revelations in all good intention

but all that happens is that people find them beautiful and true and imitate

them, and

so never come to any independant realization. U.G.also attracts people, but he

doesn't

give anything to imitate, and he causes people to question that whole process. I

think

that's what started him off in his reaction against J.Krisnamurti, he saw many

people

who followed him around and wanted to be like him and have faith in him and

parrot his

words and ideas rather than being independant. That's why I called him the

antidote.

The story of Andrew Cohen's mother and a couple of other devotees going to see

him and

being 'cured' of their devotion to A.C. is another example.

 

love, andrew