U.G. Krishnamurti

[Kevin Solway]

I received an email concerning David's criticism of UG.

Dear Sirs,

I am subscribed to a forum on UG, amongst various other forums, and someone on that forum pointed out the above-mentioned article. To read such an article from a person who is so-called on the spiritual quest surprises me I must say, and for anyone to publish any criticism is certainly not the spiritual way. I replied to the forum with the following message just so that this ‘infectious’ attitude and behaviour is not completely transmitted and widespread whether it be for UG or any other person:



Hi everyone,

I don’t know who this David Quinn is or where he is but I would like to comment on this article in his absence anyway as this article has been publicised on the web for the world to see.

First of all I would say (what UG says too), “People only want to hear what they want to hear!” and so David Quinn is not hearing what he wants to hear and thereby goes about broadcasting his unenlightened egoistic opinions about someone he will never really know because no-one can really know another, especially when they don’t know themselves.

I don’t know UG either and I have never met him, but I have found much wisdom in not only what he says, amongst others, but in the manner that he says them and even treats people. If you look at some of the biographies of enlightened people, you will see that their gurus were not exactly kind to them either, and the sole purpose of their behaviour towards them was to ‘shake’ the ego of that person so that they would no longer repeat the habit of a lifetime, that of responding and reacting to the ego.

To find any value or reason in criticising people, in my eyes, has no purpose whatsoever because people will not change with words of criticism or insult, and in any case it is easy to criticise others and not look at ourselves with a critical eye. To look without is a total contradiction of all the teachings no matter what denomination you adhere to. Why would you want to change anyone anyway when you have not even ‘perfected’ yourself yet? This has to do with control; control of others, control of our lives, control of everything, and we are certainly living more and more in a world of total control with less tolerance and acceptance of others, which is hardly spiritual. And then we have the audacity to complain about friction with others and wars worldwide and yet we are the very creators of the chaos and horrors of the world, but of course we don’t like to blame ourselves!

When David Quinn says, “All the evils of egotism - war, violence, rape, ignorance, etc – are in large part caused by people like UG” – I disagree with this completely because it is only when we react to people without thinking of the consequences or reasons for our actions that wars are caused, and David Quinn has certainly done this and his words have reflected nothing but himself and what he creates in life. The state of the world would be somewhat different if there was more acceptance and tolerance of others as far as I am concerned, and I find that David Quinn has much to learn. It is a pity that so-called people on the search to enlightenment tend to look without and never want to ‘see’ what the problem within is and why they say, do or think what they do. To be enlightened is to be at peace with the world and not at war mentally or otherwise as David Quinn seems to be.

No-one has ever forced David Quinn to follow or be in the presence of UG, so why he should have such a ‘violent’ reaction to such a man is beyond me. My philosophy is that we are always in the right place at the right time, that we always hear what we ‘need’ to hear and not necessarily what we want to hear, so whether I am insulted or flattered, it is as it should be and I thank the person for the opportunity for me to ‘see’ myself in a clearer light. It is not by chance that there is a saying, “Your best friend is your biggest enemy!”, and these sayings of old, and there are many, are not ridiculous words to shock men, but are words of wisdom, words that we often forget to give any attention to.

David Quinn says, “The root problem with UG, the one that underlies all the other problems outlined above, is that he has no bodhicitta. By this I mean he has no desire to become perfect” – Why should this bother David Quinn? Why should it matter to David Quinn whether someone preaches nonsense, whether someone is enlightened, or whether someone has no desire to become perfect? Is this not a reflection of David Quinn’s own desire and failure? It is for David Quinn to find out and to know what bothers him so much in what he sees or hears in his outer world but it is a pity that he has chosen to scatter his ‘imperfection’ across the globe so that others may follow in his footsteps of criticism and intolerance. I remember the great saying, “Do unto others as you would want done unto yourself!”, words that seem to be forgotten continuously.

Best wishes,

Oyl

If you know of David Quinn and have his e-mail address, please feel free to send him my message. It is easy to criticise people and never criticise oneself, to see others as imperfect and always see ourselves as perfect but, unfortunately, the world around us shows us how imperfect we are and not how imperfect they are. David Quinn has much to learn and it is unfortunate that he deems himself perfect enough to have a website that publishes things that he knows very little about it seems. I can only wish him accomplishment in finding peace with the world around him and with others so that he finally sees the ‘perfection’ that encompasses the whole and so that only divine thoughts and love fill his mind.

Best wishes,

Oyl

[Kevin Solway]

David will probably want to respond, but I will add a few comments myself:

First of all I would say (what UG says too), “People only want to hear what they want to hear!” and so David Quinn is not hearing what he wants to hear and thereby goes about broadcasting his unenlightened egoistic opinions about someone he will never really know because no-one can really know another, especially when they don’t know themselves.

How can you judge these things about David, when you don't know David, since you believe that "no one can really know another", and even more, you believe you are only hearing what you want to hear?

To find any value or reason in criticising people, in my eyes, has no purpose whatsoever because people will not change with words of criticism

So why are you criticizing David?

Why would you want to change anyone anyway when you have not even ‘perfected’ yourself yet?

So why are you trying to change David?

David Quinn says, “The root problem with UG, the one that underlies all the other problems outlined above, is that he has no bodhicitta. By this I mean he has no desire to become perfect” – Why should this bother David Quinn?

You have criticized David for not being perfect. Why?

Why should it matter to David Quinn whether someone preaches nonsense

So why are you bothered with what David preaches?

[Matt Gregory]

You have to hand it to him, he's got Krishnamurti's teaching of total hypocrisy down pat!

[hades]

UG was the man....


his philosophy and approach go way beyond anything anyone on this forum will ever be able to offer

[Matt Gregory]

Yeah, UG serves up delicious fruit. All this forum offers is a bunch of unchewable nails. I've always been disappointed with this forum.

[David Quinn]

Oyl forgets that UG is constantly critical of religious figures and enlightened sages of the past, calling them "snake-oil salesmen" and the like. He is very damning of anyone who claims a spiritual teaching of some kind, regardless of whether it is a wise teaching or not. So in reprimanding me, Oyl is also reprimanding his very own guru.

This relates to a point I made in the essay concerning the personality cult which has sprung up around UG, filled with submissive, low-quality followers. Because UG insists that all past spiritual teachers are frauds and that he alone has found the right way, he not only discourages people from becoming intimate with the likes of Lao Tzu, Hakuin, Diogenes, Kierkegaard and so on, but he also teaches his followers to habitually lie and to erect mental blocks in order to maintain this fiction. The only avenue left open for them is to worship UG blindly, which is what we see with Oyl above.

The last paragraph of my essay is still as true as ever:

As soon as UG dies, whatever wisdom he possesses will also die. All that will be left will be a sorry bunch of third-rate individuals fashioning a religious cult out of his name. It will be exactly the same fate as that of Ramakrishna, the Buddha and Jesus. A low quality religion, filled with superstitions and lies, will emerge and negate everything of value. This is the true face of U.G. Krishnamurti's wisdom.

-

[hades]

This relates to a point I made in the essay concerning the personality cult which has sprung up around UG, filled with submissive, low-quality followers. Because UG insists that all past spiritual teachers are frauds and that he alone has found the right way, he not only discourages people from becoming intimate with the likes of Lao Tzu, Hakuin, Diogenes, Kierkegaard and so on, but he also teaches his followers to habitually lie and to erect mental blocks in order to maintain this fiction. The only avenue left open for them is to worship UG blindly, which is what we see with Oyl above.


-

Except....he never said there was 'a right way'.

Actually he encouraged people to go seek their self-help gurus, be it buddha jesus or some other con-man on the streets of india, but at the same time he also exposed their bullshit.

Even if those con-men said there was no enlightenment to search for, nothing to attain, they still created methods and paths of "reaching" that 'nothing' which they eventually characterized and glorified and turned it into something marvelous and desirable.

On the other hand Ug had no method, there was no enlightenment to attain, no god to understand, no self to transform. And he didn't contradict himself by setting up some self-help method or 'path' for people to follow, like those other gurus did.

The gurus he spoke against are the ones who teach their followers to create mental blocks, to subscribe to some system of thought, some mechanical method of analysis, some predetermined artificial manner of thinking that people can just mimic like parrots.

[David Quinn]

Hades,

That he thinks he has found the "right way", or the "natural way", or the "no-bullshit way", or however you want to term it, is implicit in everything he says and does. He doesn't spend his life criticizing other people for nothing. He isn't an idiot. He criticizes them precisely because he thinks they preach bullshit and he doesn't.

Even if those con-men said there was no enlightenment to search for, nothing to attain, they still created methods and paths of "reaching" that 'nothing' which they eventually characterized and glorified and turned it into something marvelous and desirable.

On the other hand Ug had no method, there was no enlightenment to attain, no god to understand, no self to transform. And he didn't contradict himself by setting up some self-help method or 'path' for people to follow, like those other gurus did.

Do you really think so? Doesn't UG contradict himself by setting himself up as a teacher (which he always does) and claiming that he has nothing to teach? That is a direct contradiction, surely. If he truly felt that he had nothing to teach, then he should really take up gardening or golf and stop wasting other people's time with his guru-like chatter.

But this is the thing. We are not meant to take his claim that he has nothing to teach literally.

Implicit in all of his behaviour and speech is the tacit admission that he does in fact have something to teach - that he is indeed preaching the value of enlightenment. So, whenever he says that he has nothing to teach, it is always done with the awareness that this is not meant to be interpreted superficially. He is in fact pointing to something deeper. The same is true of those enlightened sages in the past who openly pointed to the nature of Reality by claiming that there was "nothing to attain".

These are very profound teachings. They are not expressions of modern postmodernism.

The gurus he spoke against are the ones who teach their followers to create mental blocks, to subscribe to some system of thought, some mechanical method of analysis, some predetermined artificial manner of thinking that people can just mimic like parrots.

Like the way you are mimicing UG here?

The truth is, UG has his own methodology to awaken people out of their slumber, which essentially consists of rubbishing everyone else and denying that he has anything to teach. Other wise men have their own methodologies. I just think that UG's methodology, although interesting on the surface, is rather limiting and ineffectual, and the evidence for this can be seen in the calibre of his followers, which is very low.

-

[hades]

Hades,

That he thinks he has found the "right way", or the "natural way", or the "no-bullshit way", or however you want to term it, is implicit in everything he says and does. He doesn't spend his life criticizing other people for nothing. He isn't an idiot. He criticizes them precisely because he thinks they preach bullshit and he doesn't.

There is no method to the "natural way". It arises when the conditions are right not after you ponder X or meditate on Y.

Do you really think so? Doesn't UG contradict himself by setting himself up as a teacher (which he always does) and claiming that he has nothing to teach? That is a direct contradiction, surely. If he truly felt that he had nothing to teach, then he should really take up gardening or golf and stop wasting other people's time with his guru-like chatter.

He has nothing to teach, he simply negates bullshit claims, sometimes even his own claims, because there is nothing to teach or understand...people come to him with the idea that they are lacking something (enlightenment) and they need a way to attain it or realize it or whatever...he points out the truth that they don't lack anything, they just have bullshit ideas they play with.




The problem ug faced is that everyone around him thought they were deficient somehow, delusional, unenlightened, thats what happens when you have a culture spawned out of rubbish teachings of buddhism and hinduism etc...everyone who takes those things seriously feels incomplete, thinks they must 'perfect' themselves...etc...

much like how the christians felt inadequate sinful and in need of help so do people who strive for wisdom, enlightenment and perfection....its like a neurosis

he merely pointed out that those teachings are baseless and have no connection to anything in reality, there is no striving or understanding because no one is lacking in any of those categories...since there is no enlightenment no one can be unenlightened...everyone is already unique, but it doesn't matter

[Kevin Solway]

...he points out the truth that they don't lack anything, they just have bullshit ideas they play with.

In that case they are lacking the desire or ability, or causes and conditions, to drop their bullshit ideas. So they definitely lack something.

It is in the same way that U.G is currently lacking the desire or ability, or causes and conditions, to become a better teacher.

[David Quinn]

Hades,

There is no method to the "natural way". It arises when the conditions are right not after you ponder X or meditate on Y.

What's that? What arises? Already, you are contradicting the rest of your post.

For example, if the following is true ....

since there is no enlightenment no one can be unenlightened

... then no "natural way" can possibly arise, not even when the conditions are right.

DQ: Do you really think so? Doesn't UG contradict himself by setting himself up as a teacher (which he always does) and claiming that he has nothing to teach? That is a direct contradiction, surely. If he truly felt that he had nothing to teach, then he should really take up gardening or golf and stop wasting other people's time with his guru-like chatter.

H: He has nothing to teach, he simply negates bullshit claims, sometimes even his own claims, because there is nothing to teach or understand...

You've clearly fallen for his schtick without thinking about it too deeply. No wonder UG urges people not to ponder anything too much. What a neat con-job that is. It all but guarantees a never-ending supply of submissive followers.

The fact remains, however .....

The very act of negating bullshit is a form of teaching. It is an attempt to rip away false ideas so that people can see the truth.

people come to him with the idea that they are lacking something (enlightenment) and they need a way to attain it or realize it or whatever...he points out the truth that they don't lack anything, they just have bullshit ideas they play with.

If he really had nothing to teach, then he would simply shoo them away. Instead, he invites them to stay and makes a living out of them. It's a scam.

One doesn't go to a hairdresser to seek spiritual guidance, for one knows that hairdressers truly have nothing to teach in this regard. They are the true practitioners of UG's words.

By contrast, people go to UG in the belief that he can help them awaken out of their spiritual ignorance, and UG deliberately fosters this belief - albeit in a cunning, underhanded way.

everyone is already unique, but it doesn't matter

Yes, everyone is unique, but just as some people are well-educated and others aren't, some people have clear minds that can fathom the nature of reality, while others remain clouded in ignorance.

-

[David Quinn]

For those who are interested, here is some video footage of UG:

http://www.ugkrishnamurti.org/ug/ug_vid ... usness.ram

-

[Leyla Shen]

Partial transcription:

The difference between man and animal is self-consciousness.

Self-consciousness doesn't seem to exist in animals. ("I don't know, I need your help...")

Self-consciousness is necessary only when it comes to survival.

Self-consciousness comes into being when there is a demand for survival.

Then later he says:

...it (self-consciousness) is not necessary for survival. It's a mistake (!?) of nature which will destroy everything.

And all he is trying to say, in the end, is that:

There is no such thing as permanence at all.

!

Bloody hell. I can't believe anyone has taken this man seriously.

[David Quinn]

Sorry, that should have been:

http://www.ugkrishnamurti.org/ug/ug_video/index.html

-

[sevens]

Leyla,

I disagree with your assertion that animal's lack self-consciousness. It is our own self-consciousness, our own fragile ego; that leads to this conclusion, this false human pride. I believe this is the danger that U.G. speaks of.

Ya also gotta keep in mind, his approach. His technique, his style. Everyone drinks from their own cup, the same liquid.

[David Quinn]

That isn't true. Often the liquid is a very diluted form of Truth, or indeed another kind of liquid entirely. UG makes too many compromises, and thus, at best, the Truth he teaches is a very diluted kind. It is unfortunate, but the negative consequences of his life will far outweigh the good ones.

-

[sevens]

True. But, your own cup, your own discerning mind, syphons wisdom. A mind that seeks, will recognize, and hopefully, continuely thirst. U.G.'s philosophy is a direct, and abrasive set of knowledge; suitable to those that may suffer under other modes of expression. I'm sure that he would teach thus, "Do not believe what I have to say, if it does not piece together with your own mind."

[Leyla Shen]

sevens wrote:

I disagree with your assertion that animal's lack self-consciousness. It is our own self-consciousness, our own fragile ego; that leads to this conclusion, this false human pride. I believe this is the danger that U.G. speaks of.

Actually, I directly transcribed those quotes from the video link supplied. (Apologies for the lack of clear formatting. I have now corrected that.)

What would you say to/about UG, given this?

Never mind, I know: what's true for you, is true for you, right?

[sevens]

Well, I'd probably give him a good evil eye (I think I have one, in here
somewhere).

Then, pose the question:

"Are you man, or machine, U.G.?"

To which he'd reply: Machine.

Then, I'd hop on my trusty dolphin friend, Atari -- and glide through the Milky Way.

[unknown]

David Quinn is a kid. Anyone reacts is a fool.

[unknown]

UG is a fool just like you all are. Yet he likes to play. He likes to provoke. Thats his goal and for his own entertainment.

The fact of the matter is any attempt to change human with words will result only in failure.

Anyone who agree is a fool. Anyone who disagree is a fool as well.

Quinn is a moron. He is my bitch. All humans are my bitch. Reacting baboons.

Every word you speak is based on a frame of thought based on some form of belief. So any opinion is just a energy puke to clean up his brain and balance energy level.

UG does some wonderful thing though. His words are surface level. It is a planned talk. Any thing deep is always based on belief. If he start to give reasons , more followers will start to believe in his methodology. Thats the danger lurks.

Quinn behaves like exactly UG wants.

Every one have their own path to their life. No one can say theirs better. only fools say.

UG is a fool in someway but he played his role to perfection according to his own thought process.

World is simple. Life is simple. EVerything is simple.

Only people who hallucinate who makes and imagine things and rationalize things with imagined objects.

Peace
unknown

[Rairun]

I think UG is a cool dude.

All he seems to say is that there's no wrong way of living. Anyone can do whatever he or she wants -- sure, there will be mundane consequences (like going to jail if you happen to go against the law, for example), but that's all. Enlightenment, perfection, heaven, etc are all different ideas of how things should be, and the core of his life philosophy is that there are no "should"s outside our own personal valuing.

Of course he's a con-man sometimes. I don't think he's interested in spreading the truth or anything else. He's just getting his own kick out life.

I do find that he says truthful things sometimes, but you can't just take his word for it. He'll try to explain how he sees things, but the way he articulates himself is often sloppy. He's not too rigorous with the words he uses, so at one point he'll say that there's no natural state and at another he'll say there is. The only problem there is that he seems to mean different things by "natural state" in each case.

Then there are times when he just spouts things out in a whim and doesn't make much sense. For instance:

...it (self-consciousness) is not necessary for survival. It's a mistake (!?) of nature which will destroy everything.

I could reply to him: "But damn, UG, I like being self-conscious. I'm not about to commit suicide because nature made the 'mistake' of creating me. If I end up destroying everything, I don't give a fuck." I could also point out how both of his statements are contradictory. Then he'd either agree with me or try to beat me with a stick because I outsmarted him.

When his reasoning fails, he comes back to that main point of his: he can do whatever he wants, even lie. He really just wants his fun.

[Sapius]

Sevens: Ya also gotta keep in mind, his approach. His technique, his style. Everyone drinks from their own cup, the same liquid.

David: That isn't true. Often the liquid is a very diluted form of Truth, or indeed another kind of liquid entirely. UG makes too many compromises, and thus, at best, the Truth he teaches is a very diluted kind. It is unfortunate, but the negative consequences of his life will far outweigh the good ones.

I don't know much about this UG, but I can clearly understand what I see here.

I think Sevens "liquid" is Reality itself, and Reality itself cannot be considered diluted. However, what is diluted is self-consciousness, which self-creates truth and untruth, negative and positive, and good and bad. In effect, UG is right in saying that self consciousness creates misery.

[Rhett]

.

I recall having conversations with you over a year ago Rairun and you're still saying the same things. No progress. Still extoling the virtues of psychopathy.

.

[Rairun]

No progress by your standards... that's right. And the reason why I hadn't come here in so long is exactly that there isn't anything new to say when it comes to these matters. It gets old.

You seem to be pretty stuck yourself with the progress talk. :P