Flesh-and-blood Buddha or Stained-Glass Saint? a Response to Gopal

Abstract

The purpose of this response is to point out that Gopal (1995), in his reflections on my article, has (a) uncritically accepted the word of Krishnamurti's devotees as "more reliable" than the testimony of someone who could have known him much more closely, (b) misrepresented my article as an attack on Krishnamurti when it was plainly a defense, (c) attributed views to me that are the opposite of those I stated, and (d) proposed an assessment of spiritual progress that is clearly at variance with the very teaching by Krishnamurti that he quotes in support of it. A more sympathetic reading of Krishnamurti's life and work than mine would be hard to find.