In a sense you can therefore say, that I am defending J. Krishnamurti, while Richard is attacking him. 

All you have done so far is to bitch about ‘Mr. Jiddu Krishnamurti’. When you began to define Krishnamurti’s ‘enlightenment’ in your own terms, I began to sense some superiority and competition, so I lost interest. Otherwise, I am not inclined to play this ‘debunking game’ with you.

 I will give you only one example here of your distorted interpretation: You wrote: ‘I was merely following the precedent that Mr. Jiddu Krishnamurti himself set. He consistently referred to all his words as ‘Teachings’.’ And then you go on: ‘As these words came from a source that he described as ‘that which is sacred, holy’, it is clear that he was bringing some unknown god’s wisdom to earth’. This is nonsense. There is no unknown god, and Krishnamurti never brings God in as the ground from which he is talking.  There is nothing mystical here, nothing from some religious authority, nothing in a dimension that is other worldly. Contrary to what you have said, Krishnamurti never says that he has a Soul, a Self. This is why it is important to read a person with some sensitivity and care before criticising. This is why it is important to read a person with some sensitivity and care before criticising.