Ah yes, I remember that thread now you mention it!
I have since learnt that there is a lot more to Rick than his sometimes contrarian-sounding comments communicate - his playful presence on Kinfonet belies how genuinely thoughtful and sensitive a person he is (sorry for saying this Rick, if you are reading!).
At that time I think I had an image of Rick as being a kind of “spiritual nihilist” - he was saying something along the lines of: nature is just a story, it isn’t real (at least, this is how I remember it).
This statement frustrated me, because from childhood I have always been concerned about the destruction we humans are doing to the planet, to animals, to ecosystems; and have consequently spent significant periods of my life involved in nature conservation, living in jungle, countryside, wilderness areas, etc. I have always been fond of animals, been a veggie since my teens. And so it has always disappointed and upset me that some of those in the ‘spiritual milieu’ seem to denigrate nature, calling it an illusion, etc (even going so far as to indulge in conspiracy theories about climate change being a hoax, etc) - so when I heard Rick seemingly calling nature an illusion, I probably projected onto him all those images I had about such people. There is, for me, a respectable way of calling nature an illusion (e.g. certain forms of Madhyamaka), and so I spat that out at him as a final send-off.
We did actually talk about this sometime later, and it turns out he is sympathetic with the Madhyamaka illusionism I mentioned after all, but for reasons that make a whole lot more sense now that I have actually spoken with him directly.
But in that moment of friction, there was an impasse of blocked communication - I couldn’t sense where Rick was coming from, and he was trying to respond to my confusion in as mature a way as he was able to. I see that now, but I could not see it at the time.
As you say, we kept on talking, and now I have a better sense of where Rick is coming from (the puzzle that he remains notwithstanding!). But I think the impasse was only broken when we spoke directly. That changed the whole communication for me.
Yes. This probably needs going into elsewhere, but one sees how, in the development of all religious teachings, it begins with some fresh insight or creativity, and gradually, over time, becomes rigid and dogmatic.
There is a fine line between taking K’s teachings seriously, exploring them in the context of one’s daily life, listening very carefully to what K had to say - and making his words into something monolithic, unchangeable, dogmatic. There is a temptation to subtly identify oneself with his words, to create a self-image out of what K said, and to become intolerant of any other way of using language. Reactivity sets in, feelings of superiority and inferiority, those who “know” and those who “don’t get it”, us and them, etc. All of this is isolating - which we see happening among Buddhists, Christians, Hindus and Muslims.
So, as I see it, everything that K said about other religions, religious teachers and leaders, also applies to the teachings of Krishnamurti. He didn’t always make this as clear as he could have done, but it is always implicit - and often explicit - in the things he said:
‘question authority’, ‘the teacher is not important’, ‘the word is not the thing’, ‘be sceptical’, ‘tear it to pieces’, ‘doubt’, ‘don’t say anything you haven’t seen for yourself’, ‘you must be a light to yourself’, etc.
So one must have this balanced sense of - to use the Buddhist language K himself often employed - on the one hand, a reverential listening to the words of the Buddha; and on the other, an attitude of “if you meet Buddha on the road, kill him”! (a Chan proverb).