“The masters are living and enjoying great dignity and power because of the idiots. They don’t do anything; they just hang around. But you are so intent to reach that even we start feeling that here is a man who should not be deceived.

“And anyway we cannot deceive you. All that we know, we have given to you. We don’t know whether it leads to truth or not, because how can we know? – we are also in the middle of the way. Whether it leads to somewhere or not can be known only when we have reached to the end. And I know almost all the masters around. It is better you start moving alone – on your own.”

Perhaps Buddha is the first person who reached to the goal without a master. But one cannot say that those masters did not help him. They did not help him to the end – they may have helped him only in small ways – but they certainly helped him to eliminate many things. They certainly made it clear to him that it is better to go alone, to take the risk.

Perhaps that is the greatest revolution – which has not been taken note of – that Buddha reached alone, without a master, that his enlightenment was not recognized by any master. It was his self-revelation – there was nobody to recognize him.

Krishnamurti has a similarity to Buddha, but also many dissimilarities. He had many masters but they were not chosen by him, they were forced upon him. He was just a puppet in the hands of the Theosophists, so whatsoever they wanted to do with him, they did. And when they were going to declare him a world teacher – he is certainly an honest man – he refused…just because of his honesty. Otherwise he was going to be the richest religious leader in the world, having the greatest following. And he was going to found a new religion. But the man is absolutely honest; he simply refused – he could not be anybody’s master.

Since then he has been teaching against the masters, because those masters were forced upon him. Gautam Buddha has not said a single word against his masters. In fact he has praised Allarakalam, that he was a man of great insight, understanding, and that he helped him to go alone, and he was grateful for that.

But Krishnamurti simply condemned all his masters because they were forced on him, and he must have been accumulating resentment. And in this whole affair of Krishnamurti rejecting the world teacher’s role – condemning all the masters, condemning the whole idea that a master is a necessity – he went to the other extreme, saying that a master is a hindrance.

In this whole affair one completely forgets whether Krishnamurti is enlightened or not. Masters are wrong – certainly he can say that, but only about the masters he had. None of them was enlightened; none of them ever claimed to be enlightened.

His declaration that he is not going to be the world teacher shows only half the truth. It is sincere that he refused, but the question is: why is he refusing? Is he not capable of being a world teacher – is he not yet enlightened? – or is the very existence of teachers and masters wrong? He has taken the second idea.