The explainers of Krishnamurti

The issue is as follows:
There are already many analyzes of the teachings of Krishnamurti. There are whole books explaining it. Someone even once said that there was already a "K literary movement" in which many authors deal with explaining the teachings to others, something against which K warned a lot.

For me, each and every one of these analyzes are harmful because inevitably the teachings are filtered and distorted by the author's conditionings.

There are very few people in whom meditations arise and can amplify the shock wave of the teachings (so to speak), but such people never focus on K's personality or take the teaching itself as an object of analysis; rather, these meditations (as with K) are directed to the understanding of reality, of life.

That is, the person who lives the teachings is not going to deal with the logical dissection of what K has said; instead, it will direct its empty gaze towards reality and something that is not himself will be expressed.
Period.

 Originally posted on Facebook

 

Just another "shoddy Krishnamurti" more. This time, even more dangerous

I found this photo after writing the note.
It is curious the liking that false teachers have about
placing flowers near them, when they are lying.

I think that Jeff Foster is even more dangerous than Tolle in the sense that (more shrewdly than Tolle) has avoided several points that could typecasting him as K's "interpreter":

• There is no way to know how he makes money out of this, except for his books. He does not charge - as does Tolle - even to witness the recordings of his videos.
• Adopts a position of "we are friends, I am not a guru" avoiding the stage with flowers like Tolle.
• He does not mention K in the sense that he is someone who exposes his teachings; however, many things he says, K said it years before.

I think that this introduction on his website can largely define Foster's message:
"I do not see myself as a spiritual or self-help guru, or even a 'teacher', really, although some people like to call me that. I see myself rather as a loving friend, who simply reminds you of what, deep down, you have always known: that there is nothing wrong with you ... and that you are loved beyond words, always, just as you are, in this moment ... " 

Wow. Hard to find anything more contrary to what K has said. The question is: why do people associate Foster with something similar to Krishnamurti's teachings? Just because they feel good when are close to him, or because he's good-looking, or because he's a Cambridge astrophysicist?

Because if we refer to his words, he is proclaiming the deepest acceptance of the "Me" that can be expressed by the most threatening New Age guru I can know about.