Join 3,512 readers in helping fund MetaFilter (Hide)

"You can throw it on the garbage heap, as far as I am concerned"
April 1, 2007 12:43 AM   Subscribe

U. G. Krishnamurti is no more.
posted by homunculus (23 comments total) 5 users marked this as a favorite

(Not to be confused with the more famous J. Krishnamurti, who was briefly discussed here.)
posted by homunculus at 12:45 AM on April 1, 2007

The body is not interested in anything you are interested in. And that is the battle that is going on all the time.

I like that.
posted by Citizen Premier at 1:04 AM on April 1, 2007 [1 favorite]


I remember hearing about him shortly after I first got online. This was, in fact, before I had even heard of J.

He intrigued me with his "I'm not a guru" thing. And his very anti-spiritual stance.

Thanks for the info, I'll have to go back and look again!
posted by symbioid at 1:09 AM on April 1, 2007

I am only really familiar with J. K., but U. G's work appears to be really compelling.

posted by moonbird at 5:40 AM on April 1, 2007

Tried making sense of the second link but pretty much stopped when I got to this:

"It was a prelude to his ‘clinical death’ on his forty-ninth birthday (in 1967) and the beginning of the most incredible bodily changes and experiences that would catapult him into a state that is difficult to understand within the framework of our hitherto known mystical or enlightenment traditions. For seven days, seven bewildering physical changes took place and he landed in what he calls the ‘Natural State’. It was a cellular revolution, a full-scale biological mutation. "
posted by availablelight at 6:59 AM on April 1, 2007

This was an interesting guy. Thanks for the FPP, homunculus.

It was a cellular revolution, a full-scale biological mutation.

I wonder if those were his words, or those of someone else trying to describe an indescribable incident. It made me curious what actually happened to him during those seven days.

You have to touch life at a point where nobody has touched it before. Nobody can teach you that.

A 'moral man' is a frightened man- chicken hearted man; that is why he practices morality and sits in judgement over others.

You are more useful to the Nature dead than alive.

There is no such thing as 'knowledge' for the sake of knowledge. Knowledge is power. "I know. You don't know".

Cabbages are more alive than human beings.

When you know nothing, you say a lot. When you know something, there is nothing to say.

That last one reminds me of Lao Tsu's "He who speaks does not know. He who knows, does not speak."

Stop thinking and start living.

Not bad advice to live by.
posted by Enron Hubbard at 7:47 AM on April 1, 2007 [1 favorite]

UG had said, ‘After I am dead and gone, nothing of me must remain inside of you or outside of you.... But how do I stop all you guys from enshrining me in your brains?’

UG says "Thanks for nothing, homunculus!"
posted by five fresh fish at 9:24 AM on April 1, 2007 [1 favorite]

Thanks, homunculus.
posted by Zendogg at 10:07 AM on April 1, 2007

More Anti-Gurus.
posted by homunculus at 11:18 AM on April 1, 2007 [1 favorite]

people are dying who never died before!
posted by bruce at 11:20 AM on April 1, 2007

A 'moral man' is a frightened man- chicken hearted man; that is why he practices morality and sits in judgement over others.

Sounds a little judgemental to me. Then I read:

In 1955, UG went to America with his family to get medical treatment for his son’s polio condition. When his resources began to diminish, he took to lecturing for a fee. ... at the end of the second year, he lost interest in lecturing and then the inevitable happened. His seventeen years of marriage came to an end. His wife returned to India with the children. And UG drifted from one thing to another.

Not that I know any details, but really, dropping the job because you feel like it while you have a sick child - doesn't look to good to us chicken hearts.
posted by IndigoJones at 3:56 PM on April 1, 2007

He strikes me as kind of an Indian version of Wittgenstein. Not just in terms of what he has (or doesn't have) to say, but also right down to seeing followers as burdens, distracting himself from the burden of thinking with genre fiction and entertainments, etc.
posted by treepour at 5:25 PM on April 1, 2007

Homunculus, thanks for that anti-gurus link. I need to print that out and have it handy next time I encounter some Eastern-religion-loving nitwit who thinks his doodoo doesn't stink.
posted by jayder at 7:13 PM on April 1, 2007

Seconded on Anti-Gurus, that's a nice find.
posted by JHarris at 7:35 PM on April 1, 2007

By "anti-guru," you of course mean, "Guru who is capable of suckering you by appealing to your sense of secularist hubris."

'Cause there's nothing that assumes authority and is rooted in non-empirical practice here, right? Right?

See, there's a funny thing about gurus: they come in all shapes and sizes. They fit all niches and markets. They can even adapt to people who want to be assured that their Hindu or Buddhist friends are "nitwits."
posted by mobunited at 8:43 PM on April 1, 2007

I'm sorry mobunited, but just linking to his articles isn't enough to convict him. Could you elaborate a bit? Give a specific example.
posted by JHarris at 10:45 PM on April 1, 2007

By "anti-guru," you of course mean,

You are wise. Will you be my guru?

*prostrates before mobunited*
posted by homunculus at 11:53 PM on April 1, 2007 [1 favorite]

No one's done it yet and the temptation is just too strong. Follow the Gourd!
posted by treepour at 12:57 AM on April 2, 2007 [1 favorite]

I'm sorry mobunited, but just linking to his articles isn't enough to convict him. Could you elaborate a bit? Give a specific example.

Kramer's approach to yoga in the articles seems to be mostly, "I'm not going to commit to any theory, but I *am* going to tell you not to trust your own commitments." This is basically the kind of bullshit you find in invalid authorities in any tradition. The essence of the doctrine is essentially left to the whims of the teacher, either because it's ineffable, revolutionary or highly syncretic. Kramer's chosen Eat-West syncretism, which is, incidentally popular in a lot of cults -- the former Aum Shinrikyo, for example.

Now if you believe Kramer and Alstad, the basis of thinking is important -- not just deed. So by their own criteria, Joel Kramer is somewhat equivalent to Shoko Asahara, Oh snap!

And of course, their characterization of Hinduism and Buddhism is about as relevant as brown polyester bellbottoms -- it's very 70s, baby. At one point Kramer files the numbers off of two-truths doctrine and presents it as some nifty-keen "third way." And the funny thing is that Two-truths is what makes Kramer's characterization of (at least Mahayana) Buddhism as cultic silly, ignorant and incorrect. There are a lot of institutional things wrong with various Hindu and Buddhist sects, but they aren't significantly worse than any other religion or, in fact, post-spirituality movements.

Now, I don't think Joel Kramer is equivalent to Shoko Asahara, but I do think that any ideology which gives this notion credence is probably dumb. And I think criticising the basis of a religion in one article while repeating one of its core tenets in another is also pretty dumb.
posted by mobunited at 2:12 AM on April 2, 2007

"I can't tell you the secret of life, and I don't have any answers for you. I don't give interviews, and I'm no longer a public figure. I just want to be left alone."
posted by homunculus at 9:56 AM on April 2, 2007

Well, I'm convinced.

I'm convinced that I don't understand any of this.
posted by JHarris at 1:44 PM on April 2, 2007

thanks for the links. great stuff.
posted by mrgrimm at 2:04 PM on April 2, 2007

"Never underestimate the power and value of one who delivers a kick in the ass(umptions), even if (s)he is personally quite insane..."
posted by homunculus at 9:33 PM on April 2, 2007

« Older Google's at it again....  |  Harder, better, stronger, fast... Newer »

This thread has been archived and is closed to new comments