I found this thread from a pointer from obyvatel
here. Here's an online obituary on U. G. where, basically, the obit is UG's life story, or at least what the author considers the important bits:
_http://www.ugkrishnamurti.org/ug/obi/
The idea of UG="empty" is interesting. I think even UG would agree with the intellectual version of 'empty.' He has been direct about that, expressing the idea that he has nothing to teach and that people can do whatever they want with anything he says, because, in his own opinion, he is basically not saying anything that he thinks people shouldn't or don't already know on some level.
Specifically:
My interest is not to knock off what others have said (that is too easy) but to knock off what I am saying. More precisely, I am trying to stop what you are making out of what I am saying. This is why my talking sounds contradictory to others. I am forced by the nature of your listening to always negate the first statement with another statement. Then the second statement is negated by a third and so on. My aim is not some comfy dialectical thesis but the total negation of everything that can be expressed.
Even the above can be taken in two ways. One, the path to the "empty" void where enlightenment would probably be ultimately physically expressed as a comatose state of non-responsiveness. Or, as a necessary stage in a Dabrowskian process of rebuilding one's own personality, or self. What do y'all think on this point?
Anyway, I then compare UG with Gurdjieff. Both would be very good at smashing sacred cows - even running down the thought/belief process that might be used in creating them in the first place, so both UG and Gurdjieff could probably help people understand aberrant thought processes and inappropriate/wrong behaviors that follow incorrect thinking. Further, in regards to behavior, UG has said that he can be happy with a happy person and feel bad with a person who feels bad. He did not, however, include anything "in the middle" that might represent something of his own - at least nothing that I can find, ATM.
In terms of helping others, the departure point between G and UG might well be at the place where a person asks what is the point of doing any of that conceptual questioning and dismantling. This may be where "empty" comes in to offer nothing beyond this life. We already know, as obyvatel pointed out, that UG offered no hope for esoteric development or anything after physical death and we have UG's confirmation of that, so there's not much more to say there, I think.
Gurdjieff had hopes for esoteric development and survivability in some way - whether continuous existence after the death of the body after one's personal work of developing something survivable, or of intermittent recurrence as time flows on (at least I gather that is the case). Although I think G left us with no evidence that this can be accomplished or that it has been attained, he did seem to leave us enough examples of theory and practice to leave open the possibility in our minds - at least while attempting to follow his Fourth Way example.
So, between UG and Gurdjieff, I would definitely assign Gurdjieff the chance for survivability or intermittent recurrence. G left a map of his thought and way of thinking in the memories of others and in a lot of written material. I propose all that to be a map of his psyche, however complete or incomplete. Physical body wouldn't matter I guess since the process of building one of those can be set in motion at human conception.
Some years ago while surfing the net I found by chance a name: U G Krishnamurti. I did some reading about him and his "teachings" and statements. All the stuff seems quite weird and unusual; some people define him as anti-guru. I'd like to ask forum members what do u think of him? and especially about his sayings such as: The uniqueness of the individual cannot express itself because of the stranglehold of the experiences of others.
