What I think our friend is saying, though, is that even if K were the Buddha of our time (not her words, but mine), that would not grant him a monopoly on the expression of truth. Others might be able to express it differently and it might still mean the same. By this she also means to warn against turning K’s impressive teaching into the exclusive doctrine of a particular sect. Implied in this is the sense that no matter how deep K may have gone, at certain levels he is saying very much the same thing that others have said. When it comes to inquiring into the human condition, K certainly touches on many things that others have also investigated and his insights are not unique, for others have also had them, no matter how differently expressed. The depth and range of K’s understanding, however, is so total and complete that it is hard to find anything resembling it anywhere. So, while there is a great deal of ground that has been covered by many others, there is quite a different dimension to K because of the all-encompassing nature of his insight. That is for me the difference.
This is a companion discussion topic for the original entry at https://kinfonet.org/articles/is-krishnamurti-unique