A few days before his death, in a final statement, he declared that nobody among either his associates or the general public had understood what had happened to him (as the conduit of the teaching), nor had they understood the teaching itself. He added that the "immense energy" operating in his lifetime would be gone with his death, again implying the impossibility of successors. However, he offered hope by stating that people could approach that energy and gain a measure of understanding "...if they live the teachings". In prior discussions he had compared himself with Thomas Edison, implying that he did the hard work, and now all that was needed by others was a flick of the switch. In another instance he talked of Columbus going through an arduous journey to discover the New World, whereas now, it could easily be reached by jet; the ultimate implication being that even if Krishnamurti was in some way "special," in order to arrive at his level of understanding, others didn't need to be.
I have the feeling that Krishnamurti is ultimately correct in his statements coupled with a feeling of impotence, due to not having the direct experience that leads to the insight. There is a vicious circle: to understand Krishnamurti's thought and hence achieve direct perception, you need to already have direct perception! Understanding Krishnamurti's teachings at the level of intellectual ideas does not count.
Perhaps it is possible to explain why no-one but Krishnamurti himself could understand the teachings: this essay expounds an interesting and plausible theory. It was suggested by Todd Williams and all credit for the idea should go to him. This text is a synthesis of the emails that Todd and I exchanged about Krishnamurti in 2012.
Todd posits that the reason why Krishnamurti could see things that others cannot is because he had a different brain. He suggests that Krishnamurti suffered from a brain tumour or some other brain trauma. His theory is that the brain injury brought the gift of direct perception, which normal people do not have.
It is important to state here that neither Todd nor I wish to debunk or denigrate Krishnamurti or his teachings. Severe handicaps have been instrumental in causing various people to scale great heights. One famous example is Demosthenes. Daniel Tammet, the author of Born on a Blue Day is autistic but he has unusual talents, such as being able to multiply large numbers in his head by seeing the numbers as shapes and then merging these, ie he does not actually do multiplication in the ordinary sense.
This parallels what Oliver Sacks has written about people like the surgeon Tony Cicoria. Cicoria was hit by lightning and survived. Some time later he was struck by an insatiable desire to listen to piano music, in which he had had no previous interest. He acquired a piano and started to teach himself to play. His head was flooded with music that seemed to come from nowhere and never ran dry. Within three months of being struck by lightning Cicoria spent nearly all his time playing and composing. Another example was Jung, who, in conventional terms, went "crazy", yet he founded a rich school of psychological thought.
Even if a tumour were the real cause of Krishnamurti's enlightenment that would in no way invalidate the value of his teachings. Sacks writes, "... with no disrespect to the spiritual, I felt that even the most exalted states of mind, the most astounding transformations, must have some physical basis or at least some physiological correlate in neural activity."
Todd thought about Krishnamurti when he read a chapter of Oliver Sacks', An Anthropologist on Mars, called "The Last Hippie". It tells the story of Greg F., a Hare Krishna devotee, who was unable to lay down any new memories due to a brain tumour. The other Hare Krishna members believed that Greg had achieved enlightenment because he lived completely in the present. Yet Greg was a lost soul, the victim of a debilitating brain pathology. In 1977 he had virtually no memories from later than 1970.
Krishnamurti: “... can I die to each action throughout the day, so that the mind never accumulates and is therefore never contaminated by the past, but is always new, fresh, innocent?” Greg’s inability to form short-term memories could be seen as ‘dying to yesterday’ on a continual basis.
Krishnamurti's case is different from Greg's, but consider this scenario:
1) Krishnamurti achieved enlightenment (see footnote) and his insights are valid
2) This was due to an unusual feature of his brain
3) Its cause was some kind of brain trauma
4) This accounts for why other people cannot follow Krishnamurti's path to enlightenment.
Let's treat 1) as a given. If you've read this far then you may agree. As for 2), consider that none of Krishnamurti's followers understood the teachings. It seems that Krishnamurti had some special quality that could not be learnt or emulated by others. As for 3), consider this passage from wikipedia:
According to witnesses, it started on 17 August 1922, with Krishnamurti complaining of sharp pain at the nape of his neck. Over the next two days, the symptoms worsened, with increasing pain and sensitivity, a loss of appetite, and occasional delirious ramblings. He seemed to lapse into unconsciousness, but later recounted that he was very much aware of his surroundings, and that while in that state had an experience of mystical union. The following day the symptoms and the experience intensified, climaxing with a sense of "immense peace." Following, and apparently related to, these events, the condition which came to be known as the process started to affect him, in September and October of that year, as a regular, almost nightly occurrence. Later, the process would resume intermittently with varying degrees of pain, physical discomfort and sensitivity, occasionally a lapse into a childlike state, and sometimes an apparent fading out of consciousness explained as either his body giving in to pain, or as him "going off."
If we accept 1-3 then 4) seems to follow. Admittedly, this is only a theory, without any medical evidence, but I think it has merit. I repeat that the theory does not in any way detract from the value of Krishnamurti's thought. It merely explains why the rest of us don't get it.
The benefit of the theory is that it removes a major source of frustration (Why can't I get it?). I believe that normal people can cease trying to understand Krishnamurti in the way that he intended. Our inability to do what he claims to be able to do is not due to lack of effort, too much effort, improper meditation technique, or any other such cause. We simply don't have the neural wiring required. Normal people cannot experience what Krishnamurti did in the way that he did, ie directly, spontaneously and without effort. Yet they may be able to achieve enlightenment through meditation retreats or other means.
You may be thinking, "If only people with an appropriate tumour can understand Krishnamurti's teachings then what use are they?" I think a tumour does not invalidate the value of his teachings. Consider the cases of savants, who have super-human mental powers of memory, music or calculation. In some cases, these powers are acquired due to a brain trauma incurred as an adult. The talents unleashed by these brain injuries are real, regardless of their cause, as are their fruits. Perhaps Krishnamurti was a spiritual savant?
That leaves open the question of the value of Krishnamurti's thought. Does Krishnamurti know something we don't, or is he merely exhibiting tumour symptoms? I see him as a deep and penetrating thinker, probably the deepest I have encountered. His are not the ramblings of a disordered mind. Putting his supposed tumour aside, the writings either say something of value or they don't.
The way I now see him is that his tumour gave him access to something that you and I are not privy to, but we can read the writings and make of them what we can. After all, truth is a pathless land, even with Krishnamurti as a guide!
NB Krishnamurti himself never used the word "enlightenment" because he wanted to avoid the accumulated meanings that this term has acquired over the centuries.
Postscript, November 2015. Jill Bolte Taylor gave a TED talk that may have a direct bearing on the theory given above. She is a neurologist who experienced a massive stroke in her left hemisphere, near the language centre. She remained conscious and observed the state of her own mind: 'And I'm asking myself, "What is wrong with me? What is going on?" And in that moment, my left hemisphere brain chatter went totally silent. Just like someone took a remote control and pushed the mute button. Total silence. And at first I was shocked to find myself inside of a silent mind. But then I was immediately captivated by the magnificence of the energy around me. And because I could no longer identify the boundaries of my body, I felt enormous and expansive. I felt at one with all the energy that was, and it was beautiful there... I found nirvana.'