U.G. Krishnamurti's Tittle and the Mystique of Enlightenment
"He that is able to receive it, let him receive it."
Evaluating the thought of Uppaluri Gopala Krishnamurti is a greatly beneficial place to orient oneself among one's acquired knowledge. It is a matter of separating between a mesh of defiant Godlessness and a wholly loose understanding of all practiced philosophy; sc. Krishnamurti is of a both eastern and western mind (replete with recollections of many Indian counselors, meetings of the Theosophical Society (knowing the maitreya that never was, Jiddu Krishnamurti), and having attended college, at which he studied psychology), and to evaluate him is to exceed those traditions and to go past his guru misinterpretations.
Krishnamurti realizes, at minimum, the nature ("mystique") of discussing enlightenment—(Bodhi, moksha, satori, &c.—seeing that those identifications are mere referents)—and a whole understanding of the end points, which are selfsame to the beginnings, of mind. He should not be evaluated with the regular pantheon of occidental and oriental verbiage—those are to be used for convenience, ad libitum, and disregarded at an edge. Saying Krishnamurti teaches "nothing" is different from the idea that he is not teaching. He is pointing towards an experiential understanding that mind is "nothing," presupposed with the dissolution of the ego, and the following throwing out of uncertain interpretations. This realization was preceded with intimations towards a true nondual experience—but the experience itself is not that word; he shows classical signs of nondual avolition.
His apprehension was demonstrably imperfect: he was an atheist,1 and reverted into uncertain looseness when Truth could have increased Its place, all considerably marring his thought. He fell into the traps of vigor and exasperation; resulting in a flawed churning out of rationalism and an unserious Godlessness. He concluded that there is no mind to apprehend but dissociated, pure experience.2 Krishnamurti’s development, despite being with blemishes, is thus useful at its ends for Trinitarian Christians, who may use his own burning out to fuel their personal understandings of the traditions which are not theirs, in relation to their own.
U.G. Krishnamurti loses himself for, not only words, but thick and coherent philosophy as well. At the edges of his thought, he falters notably in evaluating the nature of the mind and sputters a loose panpsychism out; this evaluation is not his strength, he has “something,” but when it comes time to return to pious and literal thought, there is then truly nothing prepared, reflecting the interminability of his occidental lobe. His mature thought comes from only after his "calamity," which I do not hold in serious esteem: it seems to me it was a physiological reaction from the experiential embodiment of "How do I know I am in that state?" —This is not even a question that demands an answer of potency—and it did not resolve in a serious answer that begs beyond itself, but it functioned well as a subjective mirror of gnosis. He poked through the veil of his perception, then is blown out like a candle, pushed over, thrown through, and is thus exploded—not in any intellectual dissociation, but in the phenomenological sense, as in psychosis; but not like psychosis either, for psychosis distinguished is only an aspiration of medical terminology.
This calamity was formed at length due to his warring exhaustion of spiritual outs; he had fully tired his oeuvre of mysticism and resolved it within itself and shoddily outside himself. In his words, it occurred "in spite" of his education—an entire set of quests with illusory endings—but it also occurred because of it, for he could not experientially diffuse these outs without having knowledge of them and contemplating in his prior nondual disillusionment in Europe. By absence, it should seem that this experience was his years of seeking pushing itself off himself, and thus, opposed to his statement, entirely in his past’s presence, but his insistence on the calamity’s non-relationship to anything before it can also be read as it not having any resonant implications at all. And indeed, this is once more emphasized by himself.
His plateau was exhausted, revealing a potential which was there from the start—this is a crucial understanding in hand with the gurus he met, who were saying: "Can you take it?" He believed there was no God and came to believe consciousness was "nothing"—so he seized it, banking himself entirely on grotesque, shuddering biology. The mind itself remedies the unintelligible and produces what it needs—who put the necessity there? God—but Krishnamurti was ardently ignorant of the most low that preceded faith. He found no Divine to join because he held it openly that it was not there, striking himself from revelation as one so involved in spirit not attending to the literal and the very lowest flesh.3
This is to say, in alignment with Krishnamurti himself: "Thought can create any experience you want—bliss, beatitude, ecstasy, melting away into nothingness—all those experiences"—he did not seek God so he did not ever deduce him in his searches—and if only he knew!
Post scriptum: The underrated function of Krishnamurti is how he defenestrated gurus; he reliably throws out many liars.
St. Athanasios of Alexandria, pray for us!
St. Hippolytus of Rome, pray for us!
In a post about language, it should be specified that “atheism” is not often what it seems to be. I.e., the thought of Simone Weil is undyingly essential in returning the Bible to personal life, turning once-proud atheism into mere and conscious rationalism, transmuting it into the framework for self-renunciation and charity.
This is also the only way to know his teaching; unfettered experience with no apprehension through language; and it is to be recognized how easily satori and the enlightened masters are spoken of—in these cases, we should perhaps use this gap to recognize the difficulty of discernment, and pray for wisdom with boldness and corresponding shock.
Here previously read a footnote stating that the divine of Hinduism is unlike that of the Divine I mention, but upon revision I recognize these words are in fact of the same root.