Anna, I find it rather interesting that you state “U.G. also would have declared nearly everything you’ve written here to be the same kind of nonsense that’s perpetually promulgated by those so-called teachers, i.e., the ones who “…have created nothing but a mess in this world, progressively moving in the direction of destroying not only man, but every species [of living beings] on this planet today.”

My impression, after decades of study, was that he was very sensitive, in his more mature years, to the use of language and even more sensitive to allowing others the freedom to go their own path because his own personal experiences with A. Besant who amongst others, in my humble opinion, used him.

I believe his core belief in later life was that only individualized, personal experience leads to higher awareness’s, period, forget all the rest!

I am saddened by your angry tone.

Warm regards, Alan

I’d like to share my meeting with his words. Unfortunately, I never got a chance to meet him personally. The first time I saw one of his books was in a used books store in San Francisco while I was in the States around 1992 or 1993. I was impressed by the expression in his eyes on the cover. I’d started on a spiritual path a few years before and was much into the exploring stage, both experientially and intellectually. I bought the book, read a few paragraphs here and there, and almost got scared at what at that time I saw as a deeply nihilistic and negative view. On reading his words, I felt there was no hope in finding any spiritual path. I couldn’t approach the book again for years.

Then I realized that my attitude toward the spiritual path was about reaching somewhere, getting something from the path, and achieving an end to the mundane and existential suffering. I started to accept life as it is more and more and got the guts to read UG again. I think his message (even though he said he didn’t have any message) is very useful for people who get attached to the notion of reaching somewhere and getting something from the path. Useful for people who built a spiritual ego and are attached to the notion of bliss or the “problem solving” features of the path. Useful too for people who get attached to methods and structured teachings.

Even though UG talked a lot about the non-existence of enlightenment, in my opinion the description of his state resembles similar descriptions by other spiritual teachers. (Yes, I know he never identified himself as a teacher, not even spiritual, nonetheless he talked for years about “spiritual stuff.”) Also, saying that there is no such thing as enlightenment is, to me, compatible with what many teachers say that there is no “individual” enlightenment. Once the state is reached, there’s nobody there anymore.

I feel the perennial philosophy applies to UG as well, and that at a certain level differences melt. In every epoch, the teachings lost their life force and became fixed methods. Therefore, once in a while, new teachers appear who help in getting one disidentified from the structures that the mind creates around teachings.

Quoting Osho:
Buddha was obliged to say, “There is no such thing as soul.” Mahavira had said, “There is no God, the soul is.” Buddha had to say, “There is not even soul,” because in Buddha’s times people began to ask, “What does the atman mean?”

I think that UG has an important role in smashing spiritual conditionings. We don’t know what UG’s reaction would have been to my words in the article. Maybe he would have kicked my ass, or just laughed or simply not cared or perhaps he would have winked at me. In any case, I like to think that his act, coming from his natural state, would have been more unpredictable than your certainty. Anyway, he wrote at the beginning of one of his books “You are free to reproduce, distribute, interpret, misinterpret, distort, garble, do what you like, even claim authorship, without my consent or the permission of anybody,” so I took the liberty of giving my opinion.

No, Ivo.

According to you, the state U.G. defines as “natural” is what other spiritual teachers call the state of enlightenment.

U.G. never equated those two concepts, nor would he have done so. In fact, U.G. insisted that there’s no such thing as what those so-called “spiritual” so-called “teachers” refer to as “enlightenment.”

Of course, U.G. also would have declared nearly everything you’ve written here to be the same kind of nonsense that’s perpetually promulgated by those so-called teachers, i.e., the ones who “…have created nothing but a mess in this world, progressively moving in the direction of destroying not only man, but every species [of living beings] on this planet today.”

So perhaps you should restrict yourself to citing other sources, rather than U.G., in support of these…well, let’s be kind and just call them notions.