Question
How did U.G. Krishnamurti lay the groundwork for a system which could enable one to destroy their concept of personal identity?
Answer
Interesting. I hadn't heard of him before. He seems to be more like the popular perception of J. Krishnamurthy than JK himself. From what little I know about him, JK was a case of "do as I say, not as I do," though he tried hard to avoid it. I just looked up the story of UGK's interactions with JK and it seems to have been a fascinating yin-yang dynamic between them.
Your question (especially the details) seems confused though, about how the Indian mystic tradition has worked, historically. This question would make a lot more sense in the Taoist or Zen mystic traditions, which seem to be more strongly informed by a sense of individual (in the sense of self-preservation) and social responsibility (in the sense of doing good or at least not doing harm).
The Indian tradition tends to be wilder and more irresponsible (as some non-Indian commentators like D. T. Suzuki have noted... I am told Bodhidharma is generally remembered as an uncouth barbarian in China), with little regard for individual or social consequences. Individual mystics vary in the degree to which they worry about these things (pre/post their mystic experiences), but in general, there are no norms or expectations around spiritual practices. It's a case of "make up whatever shit might work for you." Think of it an unregulated Guru-led + self-study + organized + disorganized market.
You get extremely socially conscious mystics like Ramakrishna , Vivekananda or the Guru du jour, Ravishankar. You also get dubious loose cannons like Oshos and Satya Sai Babas. You get deeply self-destructive non-teaching and you also get "the world is my burden" bleeding-heart do-gooder Gurudom. You also get varying levels of self-destructiveness, and UG seems to have been near the more extreme end in that sense.
It is revealing that Hinduism, unlike its fork Buddhism, does not really have a concept equivalent to Boddhisattva, the responsible post-enlightenment guide archetype. Tantra in the Hindu variety can get a lot more messed up than the Buddhist variety.
If you're interested in sampling mystic biographies, Mystics, Masters, Saints and Sages is well worth a read. Somewhat shallow, but a good buffet sampler.
http://www.amazon.com/Mystics-Ma...
You may also want to try John Welwood's Towards a Psychology of Awakening. It's a little deeper and more thoughtful and probably the most appropriate approach to your question. http://www.amazon.com/Toward-Psy...
Mysticism vocabulary 101, btw: most mystic traditions would object to your use of the word "system." At best mystic traditions tend to view their teachings as "un-systems" designed to break down your tendency to think with systems.
Your question (especially the details) seems confused though, about how the Indian mystic tradition has worked, historically. This question would make a lot more sense in the Taoist or Zen mystic traditions, which seem to be more strongly informed by a sense of individual (in the sense of self-preservation) and social responsibility (in the sense of doing good or at least not doing harm).
The Indian tradition tends to be wilder and more irresponsible (as some non-Indian commentators like D. T. Suzuki have noted... I am told Bodhidharma is generally remembered as an uncouth barbarian in China), with little regard for individual or social consequences. Individual mystics vary in the degree to which they worry about these things (pre/post their mystic experiences), but in general, there are no norms or expectations around spiritual practices. It's a case of "make up whatever shit might work for you." Think of it an unregulated Guru-led + self-study + organized + disorganized market.
You get extremely socially conscious mystics like Ramakrishna , Vivekananda or the Guru du jour, Ravishankar. You also get dubious loose cannons like Oshos and Satya Sai Babas. You get deeply self-destructive non-teaching and you also get "the world is my burden" bleeding-heart do-gooder Gurudom. You also get varying levels of self-destructiveness, and UG seems to have been near the more extreme end in that sense.
It is revealing that Hinduism, unlike its fork Buddhism, does not really have a concept equivalent to Boddhisattva, the responsible post-enlightenment guide archetype. Tantra in the Hindu variety can get a lot more messed up than the Buddhist variety.
If you're interested in sampling mystic biographies, Mystics, Masters, Saints and Sages is well worth a read. Somewhat shallow, but a good buffet sampler.
http://www.amazon.com/Mystics-Ma...
You may also want to try John Welwood's Towards a Psychology of Awakening. It's a little deeper and more thoughtful and probably the most appropriate approach to your question. http://www.amazon.com/Toward-Psy...
Mysticism vocabulary 101, btw: most mystic traditions would object to your use of the word "system." At best mystic traditions tend to view their teachings as "un-systems" designed to break down your tendency to think with systems.