Krishnamurti: His Experience

A. H. Almaas Lecture Series: Krishnamurti: His Experience

In the case of Krishnamurti, the teachings of this 20th-century spiritual master can’t be truly understood without understanding the man and his inner transformation.

Krishnamurti did not bring up his personal experience while teaching, yet his life was a highly unusual one. Adopted as a youth by Annie Besant (of the Theosophical Society), as an adult he kept no home but chose to travel and lecture, producing a vast body of work. Anyone with the good fortune to hear him talk toward the end of his life, when he was suffering from pancreatic cancer, could see the amazing and lively intelligence, the vital energy and clarity of mind, the dynamic, robust presence of the man himself.

In this lecture, Almaas explored Krishnamurti’s inner experience, including the headache that lasted most of his life, and the possible reasons for it.

Main Lecture Points

  1. Vastness
  2. Immensity
  3. Qualities
  4. The Otherness
  5. Krishnamurti’s Process
  6. Understanding K’s Process
  7. Efficacy of K’s Teaching
  8. Krishnamurti’s Gift

See Other Lecture Series Videos

Realization in the Rough​ - Reconciling Our Animal Instincts with the Spiritual Path​

Realization in the Rough

Watch this free talk where A.H. Almaas and Karen Johnson explore how working with your social, sexual and survival instincts can enhance your spiritual life.

Read More »

2024 Kickoff: Realization in the Rough

“Divine eros is a topic that invites the purity of our spiritual nature to combine with the power of our animal instinct. Instinct is animal, and “animal” generally means “primitive.” The animal in us is a powerful primitive force that humanity still hasn’t learned to

Read More »

A Year of Deepening Spiritual Love 

Did you know that each year Diamond Approach Online offers a central theme and inquiry invitation for our public community?  As 2023 began, over 1000 people from around the world were exploring the transformational power of the Enneagram to take them beyond their habitual self

Read More »

Three Facets of Love

What is love at the spiritual level? It is not just an emotion, though it does have affect like our emotions have affect. That affect is sweetness, goodness and happiness. But it is much more than emotion. It is an actual presence that fills our

Read More »

62 thoughts on “Krishnamurti: His Experience”

  1. Is there a coherence between the states and mental tendencies and his unfolding proces with how you perceive Krishnamurtis enneagram fixation? Could it in part explain why the kundalini does not rise to the crown, but is stopped at the ajna, could it elaborate on why he does not become the unfolding. If possible could you explain what would have made a change to unlock this fixation?

    1. We must first recognize that Krishnamurti was a highly realized being. He gave many gifts to the world of spiritual understanding. My attempt in understanding his pain and limitations in transmitting his teaching is because he was such an enigma to almost everybody. And also it gives us a clear example of how realization does not mean the end of all limiting concepts and inner limitations. I can say the same about almost all teachers who teach in the West at the present time. But his example is clear and illuminating.

      He is considered a six on the enneagram of personality types. This explains his issues with authority. The issue with authority can appear as either compliance or opposition/rebelion. As I mentioned in the lecture, K exhibited the compliance in the first third of his life and then switched to opposition to spiritual authority, starting with theosophy. The big break seems to have happened when his brother Nitya died of tuberculosis.

      It seems that the death of his brother, Nitya, had something to do with it, for he believed the theosophists promised that both of them will be protected. ”The news broke him completely; it did more—his entire philosophy of life—the implicit faith in the future as outlined by Mrs Besant and Mr Leadbeater, Nitya’s vital part in it, all appeared shattered at that moment.” [P 238. The Years of Awakening]

      He slowly revised his experiences with the theosophical kind of experiences, thinking of them as more like imagination, instead of being real.

      I don’t think his enneagram type can explain the course of his kundalini.

      He was not completely fixated, for his pure spiritual experiences show the openness and clarity of his consciousness. He was fixated on some positions, like the blanket condemnation of all spiritual teachers and teaching. I think he could have inquired with some of the highly realized individuals in his time to find out from them how they have benefited from being part of a lineage. That would have shown him that he held a position and it was a mistaken belief.

      1. I would disagree with what you’ve said at the end. He did talk to many of these people, some of those experiences are listed on their websites, for instance there was one anandayi ma (spelling may be wrong) whose meeting was written about with Krishnamurti where he told her exactly why he is not a guru.

        On the contrary, I would say if those gurus/realised beings truly understood what K was trying to convey, they would see the contradiction in them not only accepting authority, but being an authority themselves to the people they say they are “one” with, authority inherently distinguishes, it imposes, there can be no freedom in authority, when there is freedom, authority is not. In order to see the totality of something there can not be any following, I don’t think teachings can not be utilised, but if they are perceived to be authoritative, the one following will eventually be stuck in a box, no matter how wide or spacious it may seem. This is very easily noticed when one sees the criticisms laid down by other figures on K, they merely say, he is wrong, it can be done like this, whereas K offers an in depth explanation as to why it can not, there is no refutation of those points, but merely disagreements, which is hardly valid, to any person who seeks reason and not belief. At least for things where reason applies. For the followers of authority and tradition may be realised, they are still inside a structure.

        Rather than an explanation through the enneagram his distaste and rejection for authority can be readily explained by looking for yourself the insights he has discussed into authority. I don’t see the point in going into personality types for something that he openly and extensively discussed. To me, it is quite clear why he objected to spiritual authority, perhaps as I continue on this path of self discovery, I will be able to explain it as well as he did, or learn from things he might have missed and add them on.

  2. I have a concern. Isn’t it a danger to assume some pain is a spiritual challenge, while it is in reality being a simple medical issue? Maybe Krishnamurti would have benefitted from an MRI-scan.

    1. Hi Nicole,
      It is a good point. This is what I do with my students. If they have pain or physical discomfort I first ask them to check with their doctor.

      Krishnamurti had many doctors attend to him, but I doubt he had an MRI Scan.

      the other thing to consider is that the pain he experienced was in regions of the body that are classically known in spiritual knowledge. they are locations known because of the subtle channels of energy in the subtle body. This is part of the source of my explanation of his pain, what is called the Process.

  3. Hameed, I am not sure it is accurate to dismiss the the trauma of K being removed from his family, being the focus of so much projection and idealization, and even possibly being subject to abuse from Leadbetter who was implicated [and purportedly confessed] in multiple cases of pedophilia may have influence his inability to recognize himself as the source of presence (benediction) K was often alone with Leadbetter for long periods. He had much affection for Annie Bessant, but rarely mentioned CW Leadbetter.

    Perhaps you would say more about his resistance to authority and we can understand more.
    See “The case against CW Leadbetter”

    1. Hi T Proctor
      I wrote about his resistance to authority above.

      In terms of abuse and trauma. I relied on his biographers, who found no signs of abuse by Leadbeater. K himself avoided Leadbeater, for he was smart enough to know better. He was also protected by Anni Bessant, who loved him and was the head of the theosophical society.

      In other words, I use sources, and I have no sources to indicate the presence of abuse or trauma, exapt the trauma of his brother dying when he believed he was protected by the masters of theosophy.

    2. I’m so glad you brought up the subject of trauma and possible pedophilia regarding Leadbetter.

      It’s been awhile since I read the literature but I seem to remember there was also possibly excessive shaming regarding his cleanliness habits and find it interesting that he adopted western dress for the remainder of his life (which I would think would be less comfortable). Also I believe he was shamed for his habit of not closing his mouth, but can’t remember the specifics.

  4. Hameed, Thank you for this series and taking time to point out the power as well as limitations, contradictions of Krishnamurti’s teachings. It is affirming for me to hear both.

    You spoke of the blockages and named psychological issues that are likely contributing to his “process” with so much pain. If you were with him personally, where would you begin to help him understand the blockages that he wasn’t able to resolve?


    1. Hi Amma,
      I doubt he would have been open to feedback or advice about it. But I would have challenged his view that all spiritual teachings and masters do not do any good, when the evidence is overwhelmingly against his view. I would have asked him to find out or himself by talking to these masters, instead of just looking at his own mind.

      I would also have reminded him of his initial awakening under the pepper tree in Ojai, which happened during his training with the theosophists.

  5. 1.
    How can we talk about the experience of somebody else, i.e., J. Krishnamurti (K.), especially in light of K. stating the following?
    “But mystery is quite another thing [than knowledge and its action]. It is not an experience, to be recognized, stored up, and remembered. Experience is the death of that incommunicable mystery; to communicate you need a word, a gesture, a look, but to be in communication with that, the mind, the whole of you, must be at the same level, at the same time, with the same intensity as that which is called mysterious. This is love. With this the whole mystery of the universe is open.”

    Source: Jiddu Krishnamurti, Total Freedom: The Essential Krishnamurti. San Francisco: HarperCollins Publishers, 1996, p. 161 (from K.’s Journal, April 10, 1975).

    2. (I asked this question already during the Q&C)
    When I read Krishnamurti (K.) I experience him as a “naturally born” (untrained) mystic, who gives talks but does not teach. Can anybody who does not indicate any actionable path or any detailed and precise process teach others about personal and spiritual transformation? What, if anything, can we learn from K.’s pathless path beyond sympathetic resonance?

    1. Hello Jorn,
      You are right. He talked about the mystery of immediate experience. But it is himself who wrote about his experiences. I did not get them out of the air. I read his accounts. So obviously he was able to write about his experiences using words. And since I have similar experiences I have a sense of what he wrote about. It is true, that if you did not have any experience like those, the words won’t communicate to you. But if you have had similar experiences the words tell you which of your experiences he is referring to. This is a paradox in spiritual literature. The writer says one cannot say anything about the realization and then go ahead and write volumes about it.

      A teacher can teach simply by direct transmission. Raamana Maharshi did that, by simply sitting in silence. The Karmapa did it too, by performing the black hat ceremony. We will see when we get to the Dzogchen lecture, that Dzogchen relies on direct transmission, not words.

      But Krishnamurti gave many talks, and he hoped people will understand from his talks. He evaluated mistakenly. And his experience remained a pathless path for his listeners, so they had no path to understand him.

  6. Hi, Hameed, Very early in my work with the school, I experienced a Kundalini awakening that occurred on the heals of a powerful mystical experience. For several years after that, I had absolutely no pain in my body after years of suffering from chronic issues. I also experienced many months of “no thought.” About three years ago, I began experiencing a great deal of physical discomfort…I would say suffering…and have found no relief. Though I have continued our spiritual practices, including enquiry and body sensing, meditation and prayer, there is no relief. I am wondering if there are specific practices that you utilized other than those mentioned here that assisted you in moving through your obstacles. I am also wondering if there might be a relationship to the psoas muscle in this process as this seems to be playing a part in my own process, and if this might be a clue as to what is going on. If this is too personal a question to answer in this blog, perhaps there might be a way to address it with you “offline?” Thank you.

    1. Hi Claire,
      It is odd that you had no pain; in fact relief from chronic issues. .But now you have been having pain and discomfort. I will first try to eliminate any organic or physical issues. So consult with you doctors first. If these are eliminated and the pain is not a symptom of something physical, then I would suggest some body work, like deep tissue massage.

      The deep body work can work on your psoas. The posts muscle is sometimes referred to as the muscle of being. Meaning that releasing the tension there can allow presence to arise more easily. It is possible that your kundalini wants to descend, meaning transform to the descending force. For this, relaxing the poses, especially the left one, may help.

      I hope this is helpful.

  7. I very much enjoyed Mr Almaas’s talk about K’s experiences. I appreciated his readiness to question K, to doubt what he says, to argue with him, to disagree with him, not to put K on a pedestal and treat him with as infallible and almost holy. K was a human being, an unusual one as Mr Almaas implies and realises, but still, human.
    My question is about K’s pain, which started with the first awakening under the pepper tree in Ojai, and continued all his life, on and off, probably most days, varying in intensity, was, he writes in his notebook, part of his process. This process, according to my memory and understanding of what K writes, was a kind of cleansing, a growth, something moving and unfolding and expanding in his being, his consciousness, awareness, nervous system, sensitivity, his life. Reading him, I get no sense at all, not the slightest hint, of him resisting anything. Nor do I get a sense of unconscious concepts or thoughts. Of course this can’t be proved and Mr Almaas in his talk disagrees with K’s self assessments and descriptions of what was going on, Mr Almaas has his own theories and interpretations which differ in many respects with K’s own. My question is, as this process was happening to K, not to anyone else, isn’t what K says about is seems more likely to be true, also more interesting and vital, more detailed, more accurate, more direct, also clearer, also more valid, than any observer, biographer, interpreter, friend, however close to K and however insightful these other people were?

    1. Sorry, mistake in last sentence of my question. It should read:

      My question is, as this process was happening to K, not to anyone else, isn’t what K says about it more likely to be true, also more interesting and vital, more detailed, more accurate, more direct, also clearer, also more valid, than any observer, biographer, interpreter, friend, however close to K and however insightful these other people were?

    2. Hello James,
      for sure what K wrote is the most authoritative about his experiences. There is no doubt his experiences of the eternal spirit are real. I did not question the experiences themselves.

      But K himself had said on many occasions that he did not understand his pain, and that he did not understand why his experiences happened the way they did. I question his position that we should not trust spiritual traditions or teachers. When we know that many spiritual traditions had produced great enlightened beings. We find this in the Tibetan and other Buddhist lineages, in the Zen lineages, in the Sufi and many of the Hindu lineages. So I said he was obviously holding something to be true when many know it is false. To hold. falsehood to be true is bound to create difficulties, and even K himself would have agreed with that. This indicates to me, and I have no doubt about it because it is so evident, that he had held unconscious or hidden views or positions that were not true. they had to be mental views and ideas. So regardless of him being able to experience no thoughts sometimes, he had those beliefs hidden deep in his mind.

      I am not singling K out for this. It is actually the usual case, for most realized beings. It will be highly unusual for a realized being to be free of all hidden beliefs and concepts. There are so many levels of unconscious concepts and ideas, which actually makes the realized life a life of discovery. The discoveries frequently happens by seeing through an identification with a concept, or taking something to be reality when it is a concept.

      K was not resisting consciously. I am talking about hidden beliefs and concepts out of consciousness. so the question of resistance is not relevant here.

      Your position, if taken literally, means we should not question the teachings of any teacher if they are accepted to have a realization or real experience. Do you really want to hold such view?

  8. Very stimulating, fascinating lecture. What I’m curious about… in K’s many realized experiences not only does he not mention “himself” in a first-person sense, he does not seem curious about that, or curious about his “process” itself. It was part of the “just happening.” Is his “fixation” blocking also the Discriminating Intelligence (or Diamond Mind) that would, or might help, him see into the reasons for his difficulties/pain?
    In a larger sense, what is the role of that Discriminating Intelligence on “the path” or the process of one’s unfoldment?

    1. Hi Tim,
      I think K had access to the discriminating intelligence, which is an important spiritual faculty.

      But I think his integration of it was not complete. This faculty of spiritual intelligence has many dimensions of facets. It operated in him to discern what is happening in the moment. But it did not operate to connect what is happening in the moment with what happened to him in other moments. This spiritual discriminating intelligence can operate in time and timelessness. It operated in him only in the timeless moment.

      I see this as an incompleteness of the openness to this very important spiritual faculty of discriminating intelligence. It might be due to the fact that he had a very bad memory, so his memories were not reliable. But he made this limitation as a tenet of teaching. that the only true insight is the one that only looks at the moment. We can see that even this was not always true for him. For he could not truly understand the function of fear, for instance, if he did not see its effect in time.

  9. Elizabeth Zarek

    Thank you Hameed for these teachings. I have a question related to the awakening forces (Kundalini and descending) you brought up and also the pain that can arise in unconscious blockages to these forces as probably was happening for Krishnamurti. I’ve had some experiences with Kundalini, headaches and also the resolution when the energy flows freely upward, and also more recently what I feel is the descending force, grounding me and helping me embody more fully. When I’m feeling really present in inquiry and feeling a kind of subtle expanding force or opening, like an opening in the belly center getting really full, with this expansion it can become difficult to breathe for some moments until the expansion stabilizes. It often feels like a birthing, impacting my breathing patterns similar to giving birth, and I can feel some tensions in my musculature like the expanding force is electrifying my fascia. When it happens I feel really inspired, a joy, like a blessing to receive the opening, and then I’m really curious about the pressure on my system, and wondering is there some blockage that creates this pressure, difficulty to breathe, tension in the fascia, or is it the nature of the awakening force when there is an expansion and that is just how the expansion impacts the body? Because in those moments I don’t feel any resistance to the opening, the pressure gets even stronger when I’m feeling the joy, the delight of the opening. Thank you for any insights or helping me understand.

    1. Hi Elizabeth,
      Usually, pressure means a force is pushing against a barrier. the barrier might be just a habitual limitation in the body that can dissolve as the spiritual force expands. Or it can be due to particular ego structures or beliefs that create physical contractions or tensions.

      As the descending force does its jobs of illuminating obstacles and clarifying body and consciousness, even the sensation of anything physical can be gone. There is simply the presence, or the pure field of awareness. The body and its patterns are simply forms in the awareness.

    2. Hi Elizabeth!
      It was very interesting to read your description because I literally experienced the same. For me, the “birthing process” ended in giving birth to different kind of pearls. “I” (not so much identified at that time) traveled with the first through “my” solar plexus into the vastness beyond and offered it to the (more or less personalized) universe. The other pearls descended through my fontanel.
      I wonder whether this is something that is specially connected to having a female body.
      Thank you for sharing your experience! Barbara

  10. I’m often confused by the messy trail of many “realized” beings. I certainly respect and appreciate much of what J. Krishmurti went through, taught, shared, but why are we too often left with trails of … victims … as evidenced by “Life in the Shadows” about the fall out after a long term relationship/affair with Rosalind Rajagopal? It would seem that HARM was done. The relationship ended with bitterness. People were hurt, betrayed … and this was hidden from his followers. People certainly are human, and make human mistakes, but it seems that it’s important to acknowledge them and perhaps ask forgiveness and maybe share lessons to be learned? At the very LEAST, do no harm!?! (Obviously there are many other teachers with messier legacies, but what to do with ignoble actions … that appear so …. UNenlightened?) The Happy Valley Foundation in Ojai continues and must wrestle with these apparent contradictions.

    1. I agree, Rita, that a principle that should always guide us is to do no harm.

      I have not read the book you mention. I read some articles or interviews about it. So I am not that familiar with this account. I only know it is controversial, and that many of the people who knew K well questioned it.

      I don’t want to comment more on this part of K’s life since I did not research it. But you are right that many spiritual teachers have done harm of one kind or another. It is actually not that unusual, throughout history.

      This again supports my thesis that one can be realized or awakened but not completely clarified.

      1. Thank you Hameed for another insightful look into Krishnamurti. There have been convincing rebuttals to the claims made in the book that Rita mentioned, by people who knew Krishnamurti and others involved, that show that this book she refers to was filled with distortions, untruths, and mean-spirited innuendos without any basis. The real harm that was done was inflicted upon Krishnamurti by the Rajagopals, who acted shamefully and with selfishness, jealousy, and greed. And later, this book, the claims of which have later been debunked, unfortunately were believed by those who didn’t, and couldn’t at the time, know what the real story was. To find out what really happened, the books “Krishnamurti and the Rajagopals” by Mary Lutyens and “Krishnamurti in America” by David Edmund Moody, set the record straight.

  11. Lorenzo Clemente

    Thank you Hammed for your teaching on JK. I find it interesting to hear you criticizing JK. I feel my reactions/attachements that keep JK as a (the?) peek of depth and purity in the understanding of the human dimension and dilemmas. What I want to point to, is that by not using the word “me” or “self”, he reminds me of the core constructed delusion of separation, that cristallises in the concept of “self”; only useful in the conventional reality.

    1. Hi Lorenzo,
      It was not my intention to criticize Krishnamurti. I have a deep respect for him and his understanding.

      I was trying to shed lights on parts of his life that he himself said he did not understand. And in the process we understand that a realized being can still retain hidden prejudices and tendencies. I can say this about almost all teachers I know these days.

  12. Another point. Could there be a connection between K’s refusal to accept authority in regard to other spiritual teachings or teachers and his own genuine authority or self-realization i.e. the Point, which manifests in his refusal not to refer to himself in his writings in a first-person or personal way? Seems like a kind of narcissism perhaps…?

    1. I think you have. a point here, Tim.

      If you remember, in working through the issues in the face of self realization one has to go through the obstacle of feeling not wanting to be influenced. The resolution is seeing that the influence is really one’s own mind and its beliefs and hidden prejudices and positions.

  13. Thank you so much, it was very inspiring. I feel literally blessed, and although I didn´t read any of Krishnamurtis books, now after the talk I have the feeling that I am now somehow acquainted with him. I would love to be “acquainted” with Idries Shah, too. Could there be a talk about him, please?

    1. I doubt there will be a lecture about Idries Shah, Eva

      We don’t have much biographical or autobiographical sources about his life and learning. We have his writings, and I believe his books about Sufi teaching stories are amongst the best Sufi teachings that have arrived in the West.

  14. Hi Hameed, thanks for this talk. I’ve long been curious about K’s headache, not only since I’ve had pain in the head and neck due to energetic blocks for several years which has been quite difficult for me.
    I’ve tried feeling into them from a place of un-knowing presence/open-ness and inquiring into what it is, why it’s there, etc. Emotional energy and thoughts do release at times. But it seems like it never ends, things seem to be getting better, but it never ends and the blocks remain.
    Any tips on how to work through these blocks so energy from below and above move freely? I’ve been struggling with this for more than 6 years.

    1. Just for clarification, I have had a kundalini awakening 9 years ago, and also sometimes I do feel energy from above descending down and in, but clearly both streams are blocked per my previous statements.

      1. There obviously needs to be more work, Jay, in clarifying the obstacles to the flow of energy.

        The blocks can end, when there is a complete understanding of what underlies them.

        Good luck in your journey.

  15. Its really special to have heard the two lectures by you. I was particularly sensing a feeling of openness and empowerment within myself as I connected to how your own discerning intellect is able to observe so many things that my own has voiced in connection to Krishnamurthy. I also am really touched by the love and respect that is equally evident in your observation. For me the qualities with which you are observing and teaching are a teaching in itself.
    There is a softness to your clarity that I have rarely seen.

    Being from India, I have observed that the indian mind at times tends to seek out the presence of larger than life father figures, with charisma and self-confidence. Also these figures being their own authority as a way of being is rarely explored potential..because in India through our educational institutions we are continually trained out of our questions, and our creative agency. This is why when we hear a person like Krishnamurthy say you dont need to follow a teacher, many are probably freeing themselves from early memories of being in relationships with teachers who were non present, non attuned, too involved in dissemination of content instead of being delighted by the alive intelligence of the child, or helping them deepen their relationship to their own interests.

    So it could also be taken into view that the painful experiences with figures of authority who are really not into helping you connect to your inner guidance or intelligence is far more prevalent, than the few who are willing to be so precise in their self-awareness that they can observe the efficacy of their teaching style. I have been not too satisfied by how Krishnamurthy attends to questions of both adults as well as children.

    I personally see lack of attunement in many realised teachers, I too have observed this strange phenomena of answering questions without observing that there is a living intelligence in front of the teacher who is asking the question.
    It’s like the teacher leaves the space, enters his mind field and responds in a language that only he speaks, and the intellect really appears to be under an illusion that learning is actually happening. It is quiet presumptious on jiddu krishnamurthys part that he is really listening. Sometimes it’s how you listen that can lead someone to a door if not an immediate answer.

    Personally I have been experimenting with what kind of education is enlivening and effective. Many years ago, Jiddu krishnamurthys voice helped me believe in the freedom I wanted to give myself to trust my inner intelligence, and I didn’t feel the need to read or connect to other of his teachings, a few articles were enough. Giving oneelf the freedom to follow the heart of our own processes is an embodied process, not a thought level thing alone, while his words supported me at the level of thought, it was work with my body that clarified how I would make this happen for myself.
    Infact I was already giving myself a certain kind of freedom and agency prior to listening to Krishnamurthy, but I remember the invigorating current that did pass through me when I first read him. It was a line where he said individual transformation will transform the whole. I interpreted this as work on yourself, and others will automatically benefit from your own flowering. I also interpreted that as we are actually not separate, if I change, my loved ones who are connected to my field will change too, this I saw actually happen, where my parents are not the same consciousnesses and neither my husband. I removed the focus from why they were the way they were, to who was I in relationship to the way they were, what was my soul deeply seeking. Going through that catharsis started creating a ripple effect. So in hindsight I think that I recieved from Krishnamurthys words something that I needed then. Years later as my own intelligence supported me further, I was able to perceive many of the things that I find a resonance with in your lecture.

    In a way what he keeps saying, “you must investigate”, the thing I observe people do is investigate through his words, like a borrowed frame of perception, and the journey towards that frame of reference is bypassed.

    I actually am beginning to observe in our work with children that it is who you are that they are sensing, not only what you are saying. Really sometimes one might think one is liberating, but instead its pushing before time.
    It also is in my observation that one needs to be nurturing, and curious in the unfoldment of the other, the beholding of organic growth, not a pushed awakening. It surprises me that krishnamurthy was so curious and attentive to his own process, but not curious about the process of other realised beings? Why is that? What did he perceive was so special about his own realizations, besides what they did for him? What were his relationships like? He experienced love, but Did he love the other deeper through that? Was he delighted in the company of a child? Did he grow or make something with his hands? What makes a human being talk so much, and his voice take up so much room? Is it true love to want the other to open up ahead of their time? Is it another form of authoritarianism that is cloaked in pushing the other to be pathless? Do realised beings have nothing to love about themselves?

    Thank you Hameed for really speaking about realization not absolving the teacher from unconscious habit or psychological barriers. I wouldve loved to study in a classroom with a teacher like you, because you are thorough in your interests. You are interested in the other as much as your own self. You are a rare exception that I have just discovered.

    For me I’m always observing the in between moments too, I’m observing what is true listening and attunement and what are the failings in the teacher-student dynamic.

    For me I didn’t know I was on a spiritual path initially. I was just devoted to my inner questions, observing my satisfaction or dissatisfaction within learning environments, the dissatisfaction is almost equated to a certain kind of anti-authority attitude in our culture where teachers are made as gurus. However I trusted my dissatisfaction, learnt from it and what it needed, when I stopped trying to find that good nurturing teacher somewhere outside, and just be it for myself in even deeper ways, it opened me up to some beautiful spiritual experiences that are part of who I am. Experience with field of loving lights (would like to speak to a teacher) this experience was quite pivotal.
    I do observe that being aware of yourself, where no thought or emotion or life situation is missed, has a kind of intelligence that helps in mutation that keeps working on itself to improve.

    I have also sat in meditation in thoughtless states while doing vipassana, sat in that emptiness, and asked myself how did I get here? What is this about? I did not equate that thoughtlessness to something helpful?
    I felt I entered something without the guidance of a teacher of when to use it, and did not necessarily want to stay there, due to this excessive sense of detachment from the relational that was happening. I have thought deeply about all my relationships and then in environments like vipassana retreat I observed that no thought came up, only some physiological experiences which completely cleared by the last day (looking to address with a teacher.)
    Its important to have a teacher, however many teachers are not using their own experience or know how to attune to experience of other without excessively relying on their own frames of reference. I tried to ask buddhist teachers about my excessive detachment at times, they didn’t see it as a problem, buy something in me wasn’t satisfied with the idea of detachment. I perceived that some of us harbor memories of spiritual tendencies that are a response to unworked psychological needs, or perhaps dont know how to integrate spiritual openings..

    Perhaps Krishnamurthys words had their effect on me because I was willing to be there for myself while I kept looking for beings who could support me into deeper realizations.

    I remember every being whose words, or gestures lead me closer to what is dear to me, It is a skill to observe your influences and also the influence from within. It is so amazing that we are living in a time where we have access to wisdom traditions and a teaching such as yours that is in alignment with our times.
    I believe that it is very rare to see the kind of interest you have shown in the diversity of processes towards self-realisation. We are so lucky that we can savor your commitment to integration.

    I hope to benefit from the teachings of your approach and perhaps be able to reflect on my own spiritual experiences which I have not necessarily discussed with people other than my family.

    I have written to a diamond approach teacher who I believe comes to India, as a start. Still waiting to hear from her. While I want to find ways to integrate knowledge from the diamond approach, is there a possibility for the process I’ve been on to also be understood with the help of a teacher, so that I can include it? my field of influences is from expressive arts based research and somatics. I want to use movement and my voice and improvisation as a part of process of inquiry. Does the school select a teacher for the individual or must the individual find their own diamond approach teacher.

    Is there a forum to ask you more questions?

    1. hello pushpanjalisharma.
      I appreciate your reflections. It seems you are a natural student of life. And it seems you learnt something useful from Krishnamurti.

      I am so glad that you have noticed that many spiritual teachers don’t really listen to the student asking or inquiring. They just respond from their own frame of reference. It is not real listening, as we have seen with K. He seems to attentively listen, but then comes back with his usual view of things, regardless of whether it really responds to the question.

      In our school, you can join a group or ask for a private teacher, or both. If you join a group the group teachers might find you a private teacher. But if you simply want to connect to a private teacher, you will need to go to the website and select one. We don’t have another mechanism about this yet.

      It seems you already have a good discerning intelligence and openness to inner dimensions. Wonderful. Great beginning.
      good luck

    2. Another note, that might be useful for your engagement in this path.

      You write you did not get a response when you wrote to the Asia Group. I hope you got one by now. If not, your email might have gone to the junk file. This is an in person group, that was meeting in person in Thailand, but went online because of the pandemic. It will hopefully go back to in person retreats when things are safe.

      We are starting an online group in few months, and have been giving introductory teachings before it begins. To access the info for this online group use this link:
      and then click on the button that says online courses. You will find the access to the information about this online group, that I will be teaching with a team of our best teachers.

  16. william duncan

    Dear Hameed, you have mentioned the continued development of Gurdjieff since his passing, in I believe, the afterword to Cynthia Bourgeault’s book ‘Eye of the Heart’. I wonder if you feel that Krishnamurti has also developed since his death?


  17. Dear Hameed, listening to your talks of K. , and reading the blog, leaves me deeply saddened, disturbed and frustrated.
    Having met K. for 3 series of his meetings in Saanen- and that being a mayor turning point in my life, these discussions here feel like being so far removed from my experience at that time-
    Experience of a vast opening and understanding, something that is hard to put into words- without distorting the “taste” of what was shared, what was in the air- what it “did” to me.
    That vastness – in my perception- came about, cause there was no before or after, no cross-reference to anything or anybody, no need to trust, or not to trust, let alone the need to compare, categorise, or put a value to it.
    If I would have all that thoughts in my mind, which got expressed here before- I would have missed that beauty completely.
    Again- as always only in my perception- K did his uttermost not to go into all that. He wanted, that that, what was being said by him- to stand clear of all personal interference.
    He did not want to teach, or transmit, and he did not wanted to be trusted. All that would have diminished the purity of the moment, would have put a spin of who is up and who is down, of teacher and student to his work.
    This went so far, that I had a feeling, that K was withholding his field of being while talking- only in the minutes, when he did stop talking and went into silence, cause a train, or a plane came by (he said: one noise at a time is enough) his field expanded to an impersonal tenderness and strength.
    He wanted everybody to find out for himself, by sharing his “thought process” These “thoughts” always went- with undeniable clarity- to the point where thought ended, where time and space fell into one place. For me – in my memory to the time in the 80th, that was the moment when I could shortly sense that place, but was left with the knowing, that this space existed- but that I was not at the place, where I was able to stay there. That was a feeling of simultaneous sadness and the elevation- that a step had been taken, a door opened- however small.
    In the talks I attended, he never talked about not to trust other teachers- he always talked about not to trust the speaker: Don’t trust the speaker- he might have a big hole in his head- find out for yourself!
    So, not to trust does not mean to distrust! – but to keep an open mind and heart.
    Maybe I do not understand what you mean by trust. If I do trust what my take is on what you said about K and trust my experience I did have with K, then I am left with an unsolvable conflict- that makes for my sadness and frustration, but also an opening of not getting limited by choosing this way or that.
    So it would be helpful if you could talk more about the trust you mean. Not to trust might be a problem with authorities…. But trust in authorities brought about Hitler and Trump and all the other madness.
    Trust in a spiritual Teacher? Would that not be an act of arrogance: For me to know that I can trust- I would have to be at a place, where I could fully understand the teacher- to know, that he and his teaching is not in some limitation or the other. Also it would have to mean, that I am developed in a depth, that I can bee 100% sure, that I do not miss anything in the teacher and myself. That is not where I am at.
    I can’t remember having heard or read anywhere, that K. had the view that all spiritual teachings and masters do not do any good. That also would have contradicted his own work. He challenged, that it is helpful to give up one’s own open inquiry in order to fit in with any school or system, maybe he challenged the traditional relationship between teacher, path and seeker.
    In that, he was not alone. In 1992 I was part of a crew making a documentary about the reincarnation of the 17TH Karmapa. While filming in the monastery of HH the 13th
    Tai Situpa Rinpoche- he himself a student of the Karmapa since many reincarnations- Tai Situpa took me aside to answer an number of my most burning questions- which I did not have the courage to ask him. Being dumbstruck by this, I asked him, if I could not come to his monastery. He replied that he would not say no, but that he would not recommend to do that. He said something like: “I am not sure if my teaching is still any good for Tibetans, let alone westerners. For that, I would have to adjust my teaching. But if I do not just pass on the traditional teaching, then the danger that the structure of the teacher and the disciple would intermingle- and both would be lost. For me (the Tai Situpa) this danger is far to big to take. So I have to stick to the teaching of the linage”
    My sense is, that K had a similar take on this matter, and that why he did his uttermost not to get into the state of being intermingled- that being the opposite of his proclaimed goal of helping to set people totally free. In that, he obviously only came that far…. And that is still such a gift!

  18. Hi Thomas,
    I am glad you had such good experience when with K. Many did. I did too, and saw the vastness and clarity.

    But for most people it is not the transformation that K wanted for them. That is why he said at the end of his life that nobody understood what he has been speaking about. It is him who said it; not me. I did not know it till I read this account of his words.

    Anyway, about the relation to trust teachings and teachers. I don’t remember talking about trust, but I might have used the word, I meant that K said not to follow teachers or teachings, not to believe them. Here is what he himself said:“I maintain that truth is a pathless land, and you cannot approach it by any path whatsoever, by any religion, by any sect. That is my point of view, and I adhere to that absolutely and unconditionally. Truth, being limitless, unconditioned, unapproachable by any path whatsoever, cannot be organized; nor should any organization be formed to lead or coerce people along a particular path. …”[P. 293. The Years of Awakening, by Mary Lutyens]

    He iterated many times that following a path is useless. But as you saw with the Karmapa, he was the head of an old lineage that had produced many awakened individuals, like Situ Rimpoche.

    If you read K books in detail you will find many times where he advises against following a spiritual school.

    Since I am saying that what he held to be true is actually false, this goes against your sense of him, your appreciation of him. So difficult to hear.

    I respect K a great deal. He is a great figure in spirituality. But he had his hidden prejudices, just as most spiritual teachers do. .

    In fact, it was K himself who told the people near to him that he did not understand himself, or why what happens to him happens. Like the silence of thought, the pain, the otherness and so on.. And he thought somebody else might understand him. He told them if one of them gets to understand him to let him know. You can read this towards the end of the Years of Fulfillment by Mary Lutyens.

    You don’t need to know everything about a teacher to accept them as your teacher. That is not what usually happens. You either connect or not; it is a heart language.

  19. Rather than a fixation, it was more a misunderstanding, which happens often, because K was not efficient at putting things in different ways, I have listened to more than a few of his school discussions where you can see him struggle and even ask for help in putting things differently, so while he is a little slow at understanding other people’s way of looking at things, or not very varied in his approach, I do not see it as a fixation. It’s simply that he sees things as they are and puts them into words as simply as possible, which does more good than harm, I feel, for those who are willing to look themselves.

    I definitely did not get the feeling the trungpa felt he was being talked at, if you listen to the few things he chooses to add to what K is saying, it is evident that trungpa is more interested in listening rather than talking, the few points he made, were all to make sure they were on the same page, which means the other times, he simply felt no need to add anything, if he did disagree I would assume he’d pick the moments he chose to follow or agree with K, to pick out disparities, as he did once when he wanted to clarify that absolute peace was not confused with inactivity. Which technically wasn’t even a disparity, but something he wanted to clarify. So I do wonder why you felt he was talking at him here. K talks with this same passion with just about everybody. I could be wrong here, but I feel it is your interpretation that could use another look here.

    1. Adding more to it. I think it’s somewhat interesting for me to think that you would completely ignore the fact that krishnamurti was aware that he had an awakening or multiple ones under the theosophists society, it seems a little strange to me that you would simply suggest that krishnamurti contradicted himself rather than really digging into the question of why someone who was clearly raised by teachers would later completely reject them? It’s very simple to say it’s a mere contradiction. Too simple in my view.

      Krishnamurti also never said thought must be absolutely absent, he said once there is freedom from thought then it has its right place. The structure of thought is quite evident and is explained many times by him, it was one of the first things I saw for myself, how thoughts are always a factor of memory and experience, without memory, experience, and knowledge, thought is simply impossible, as all words and their associations are memory. Thoughts can not be pure awareness as thoughts are a translation using material from the past and personal experiences of the physical world you inhabit, the translation is not the thing, it is merely a descriptor. And the description is not the described.

    2. Hi Datta,
      I think the dialogue between K and Trungpa reveals more things than you are writing. It is true that Trungpa interjected few comments, especially when they were inline with what K was saying.

      But it is very clear that K was not interested in Trungpa’s view.. If I were in his position and had the view that spiritual lineages are not to be followed, I would be curious to find out from Trungpa what his experience was. He never asked Trungpa any question; he was not really curious about him and his understanding. He did not even care wheter Trungpa agreed with him or not.

      Trungpa í known for being a rascal but he was quite polite with K, and only talked when he agreed. He did not say anything to K’s comments about the uselessness of following teachings or teachers. K kept talking about that to a representative of an ancient lineage. He had the chance to find out first hand if following a lineage and teachers can be effective. He could have just asked Trungpa whether he got any awakening from his training.

      But he was obviously not interested, and my sense he did not want to know. His people must have told him who Trungpa was, so he could have addressed the issue of spiritual authority directly with Trungpa. He chose to keep putting out his view. there was really no dialogue.

      It is not that unusual for K to do this. His various dialogues are usually him putting out his view and understanding. He seems to listen to the other, but when he talks one can tell he did not really take in what was said, for he simply came back with whatever view he was putting out. I won’t call this a dialogue.

      I call this a rigidity in view, not. a fixation.

      more later for your second interesting comments.

      1. “Trungpa í known for being a rascal but he was quite polite with K, and only talked when he agreed. ”

        This is interesting to me. So, you say by nature trungpa was known to be not what he was with K, which was polite and in agreement, someone who’s known for being a rascal doesn’t seem like someone who would quietly sit and take what the other person is saying even if they had something against it. I think going by this it’s quiet natural to make the assumption that Trungpa simply understood and had no points to make against K’s criticism, he definitely did seem the kind of person to be helpless and let someone talk over him. I personally do not see how this would be possible. If you want to put your view forward, and the other person keeps talking, you politely interrupt and say something, the fact that he didn’t, even though you say he was known to be a rascal, seems to me to say that he simply didn’t feel the need to, I do remember him interjecting once, when k talked over him, trungpa simply resumed after K was done. Nothing in there made me feel like Trungpa *couldn’t* get a word in, I think you give K too much power over him in this scenario, even if K talked a lot, which he undoubtedly did, trungpa didn’t seem like a character who’d be intimidated or not wish to say something he felt needed to be said, because I feel he did make very few, but important points because he felt they needed to be said, I don’t see why he wouldn’t have if he had disagreements.

        As for him not asking trungpa his experience, krishnamurti spoke to plenty of people from lineages and people who identified as gurus, he’s said this multiple times, I don’t think he was one to lie so I’m willing to take his word for it. To me it seems very clear. I think your disagreement comes from the fact that you yourself have benefited from such teachings, but that says more about you than about the teachings in my view. How many millions have followed such teachings? And how many were able to take out of them what you were? You mentioned K said his way of the no way would bring about a transformation and use the fact that no one seemed to get it as proof that he might have been wrong. I would ask that you compare the vast amount of following of any of the popular teachings, see how many tried them, and how many actually got to where those paths lead, the percentage, if you compare the amount of people who actually stuck to K’s teaching of self observation for years and who stuck to those paths and actually got truly what they meant, would be quite similar. That to me says one thing, it is not the teaching, ever, but the individual who makes it. Because if the teachings really worked, they would have produced hundreds of thousands if not millions of people who were aware of the things that K and the teachings point to. But we don’t see that.

        You also see that trungpa himself who followed such teachings had trouble with alcohol and women, there are many such scandals where people from lineages reach the state of realisation and yet sexually and financially abuse people. So yes, more people might have reached the state of realisation through those teachings, but they were also used in ways that K’s are of complete observation and understanding can not be used. To use the sacred as a way to abuse people shows the profound limitation that these teachings have. To me, K’s teaching for this reason will always have more value. And his sense of no authority resonates with me for this reason. His way of self dependency is the only true way, because it forces you to understand yourself fully, teachings can be misused, you can take the words and leave out parts that are undeniably important, if you had to live every moment of it and find everything out yourself, that would not happen. I’ll leave the division they create for another time. The organised teachings have many failings. And I am just a 22 year old guy who I’m sure hasn’t even begun to see the things that K had laid out, and yet I can see this much now. Perhaps I am ignorant, if I am, I hope you’ll correct me, but these have been my observations so far.

        1. Actually now that I think about it, my view isn’t that teachings can not be helpful. But it’s a fact that on the large scale they do not help people but just divide people in different boxes where they identify with their teachings and accept them as the one true path which creates division. I think this is the vast majority, relatively few rise above it. Even the ones who reach the end stage of the teaching sometimes remain fixed on that particular path, unlike you, who used them and continued forward not identifying with just one. So I see you more like the exception rather than the norm and I don’t think K would have disagreed with the way you utilised teachings.

          I think his emphasis has been no authority. No I belong to this group, no identification. Which is the majority of the followers of the teachings. So I think he’s right. But, if you are merely exploring, I see nothing wrong with using the teaching to gain more insight, but you see I don’t think most people use them just for that, and K’s criticism were usually for how the majority used things. For eg, he mocks and Puts down religions in most of his talks, but in some you see him talking about what religion *actually* means, but if someone had not seen those comparatively fewer discussions, they would think he’s just against religion in every way. K provided simple views based on the majority of the consequences, but usually made it more nuanced when asked directly. I wonder if his views on teachings would be similar. Because you can simply use the teachings, as you would use K:s talks, for your growth, I don’t see him disagreeing with that. But the fact is most did not do this.

  20. Hi again, Datta,
    I appreciate you engaging the discussion, and bringing up important and interesting parts of K’s teaching. These are both mysterious and controversial, so I appreciate further discussion.

    If you don’t call K attitude about what he learnt from his training with the theosophists a contradiction, then what would you call it? I am interested in other points of view, for I want a dialogue. I would like to hear your explanation or understanding of him never mentioning his awakening while with the Theosophists, while always saying that one cannot learn from teachers and teachings, that one should totally depend on oneself?

    I am sure K was aware he had awakening while under training with theosophy. If he did why will he take the view that teachers are not useful? How will you explain such seeming contradiction, between his experience and his teaching? Maybe you have a different understanding of this situation, and I am open to hear it. I only gave my view but I don’t take it to be the final word. I want to understand him, and he wanted others to understand him.
    I am interested in finding the truth of K, not what we like or wish about him. I appreciate him immensely, and learnt much from him. But not from his main thesis that teachings don’t work and that one should not have a teacher for guidance. I have known from experience that this is simply not true. So I wondered at some point what does it mean that K keeps adhering to it, and not try to verify it with other well known teachers in his times.

    You are right; K never said that thought must be absence. For he had periods of thoughts, for he writes about observing his thoughts. But he did teach about witnessing without thoughts, that awakening happens when thoughts are not present. And in his Notebook he describes his main experiences happening when his mind is clear of thoughts. I don’t think he thought others should be like him, for he wandered why he is like this. And wondered whether it has to do with his young mental vacuity. I think he wondered towards the end of his life whether his capacity of having extended periods of no thought was specific about him, and not possible for others. This is one reason he questioned whether anybody understood him.

    You are again correct that thoughts are related to memory and experience from the past. This is what K thought as the freedom necessary for the Mutation, and wanted his listeners to understand. He, however, had no guidance about how this freedom from history as thought is possible. He said there is no how, and that was true for him. However, there are many practices by many teachings that can make this more possible to happen.

    You write that thoughts cannot be pure awareness. I recommend that you study the nondual teachings, like those of Advaita Vedanta or Dzogchen. They do acknowledge that thoughts are a barrier. But upon realizing the nondual condition, it becomes clear that. everything is awareness. This includes thoughts. In such states of realization, thoughts are not seen as an impediment, for awareness is everything, and everything is an expression of pure awareness.

    You are right; the description is not the described. But in the nondual. condition, which K does not seem to report experiencing, this does not matter. For the thoughts do not pattern or influence the realization. They are simply arising in the empty clarity of awareness.

    There are other realizations, beyond the nondual, where thoughts are not an impediment. One is not caught by the occurrence of thoughts, whether they occur or not. They are irrelevant to the condition of such realizations, for freedom has gone beyond the question of thoughts or not.

    There are also realizations where thinking is employed by pure awareness, instead of obscuring awareness. It is then an instrument for realization.

    You must understand that thoughts are an impediment to awakening only at the beginning stages of many of the paths. But many paths go beyond this, and can then include thoughts and everything else as part of the realized condition.

    I had attempted to highlight K’s gifts in both his teaching and the reports of his experiences, It is an amazing treasure. But this does not mean he knew everything about all kinds of realizations. Nothing wrong with that, for no teacher or teaching includes everything.

    I am giving these lectures partly to illustrate this truth, that there is a lot to our spiritual potential than any teacher or teaching has ever given.

    For instance, Dogen the Zen master, taught about nonthinking. Which is neither thinking nor not thinking. It is amazing to entertain this possibility.

    But we must start from the truth that thoughts, or impressions from the past, tend to obstruct our true being and limit our freedom. This is necessary, but must not be taken to be the whole truth about spirituality.

    I wonder what happens to you to read this. It is for others too, for I did not have the time to go into all of this in the lecture. Hopefully I can go into some of it in future lectures.

    1. This will be pure speculation at this point. But i would say by the krishnamurti’s instance on the seeing being the action, that at the moment he dissolved the organisation he was supposed to be the leader of, he saw the limitations of giving out truth in an organised manner, which I attempted to sum up for you partially in the comment above this one. It could definitely be something. Like, if I were to take my example, a little over a year ago, before that and all my life before I never felt life had any meaning and had a lot of childhood trauma that kept me in a box where I never did anything with my life, i was in a trap where I convinced myself I would do nothing and nothing interested me out of fear, then I found Carl Jung and his interpretation of religion and the whole hero and the adversary, taking up responsibility or heroic tasks as a counter to suffering, etc, but after that I found Gabor Maté who talked about childhood trauma and who also introduced me to your ideas and other people like Eckhart Tolle, I’d been listening to a bit krishnamurti before that never understood him, I only started understanding him recently. But if you ask me now, I would completely deny or put down the main elements that actually made me get on my feet and looking into these things from the religious stories, since while they were useful then, I see now that they were incomplete and sending me down a path I do not want to go on, it merely tried to accept the burden of suffering, and not freedom from it, accepted it as fact. Perhaps K had a similar realisation at the time he proclaimed that truth can not be organised, that makes a lot more sense to me than to say he simply contradicted himself, on something as easy to point out as this. More on my views on the usefulness of teachings and on possibilities for K’s view is there in my earlier comment, I kind of put a lot of what I should have put here, there, hope it won’t be too disorganised to sort through haha. It wasn’t my intention.

      For now, my decision is to not go for any teachings, unless you consider K’s talks as one, which I also have lessened listening to now, since my main interest has been observation in my own life, and nothing else. I do watch some interviews, like I did yours, (and yours was the only one I really liked because you talked about how enlightenment is a consistent stream of realisation and actualisation, never saying you’ve “achieved” anything which most teachings have in them, just wanted to say that haha) but other than that, I’d like to see for myself for now. Maybe that’ll change. I don’t know. But I still see and agree with your point. I am certain at some point thoughts are not an impediment, in fact, without thought you could not really communicate in different ways about these insights and experiences that you’ve gotten, or figure out the most practical way of listing them out, this might have been one of K’s limitations, he could not phrase things in too many ways, the people he was talking to obviously did not have clarity like he did, but he chose to stick to only that, if he’d tried to understand others perspectives more I feel he could have found better ways to make his communication more efficient. But of course for someone who puts complete emphasis on self enquiry, I assume that must not have been important. So I definitely see where thought can be a very useful instrument.

      Continuing on, of course I’d agree that he did not get everything, I would even say there’s definitely some things he missed. That’s why I’ve lessened listening to him, because I feel the need to look at my own life. For now I don’t see myself picking up any books or teachings on anything spirituality related, but I am not one to shut any doors. Maybe I will eventually, but for now, this seems to be the way that feels right to me.

      1. Hello Abhay
        I am glad you found some sources that can help you, like the work on trauma. I suggest that one works these things out before engaging any spiritual path.

        I am sure studying K teachings is useful. He had great wisdom. When the time comes maybe you can find a teacher or teaching who can guide you deeper into yourself.
        good luck

  21. Faisal Muqaddam makes a similar point to Hameed in saying Krishnamurti went to the absolute but had split off a frightened child part of him – hence the headaches in post dated 2019


    1. And where did this show up? If you are at all familiar with childhood trauma or the impact of an experience that lingers on, it is impossible for it to not manifest itself in outside situations. He have talks for 50 years in the open, had people disagree with him, try to cut him off, say what he was saying was useless or boring, he also consistently made remarks a man with fear would not make out in the open. Saying these headaches were a product of some part of him being a frightened child is very speculative, and also baseless in some sense. If someone has a frightened child in them, it is not possible for it to not show up in other places, and in none of his public talks do I see this. Perhaps you’d like to think about this a little more, or gain more knowledge on the manifestations and the implications of having what you mentioned being there.

  22. bruce stevenson

    Let me add Faisal’s comments on K begin at around 13 minutes in. For Faisal it is significant that K felt at home in the absolute but I believe he says his point of light was split off…

  23. Thank you for the honest, appreciative and caring way that you considered Krishnamurti’s experience. Since the 70’s I have been very moved by Krishnamurti’s life and he continues to be a beckoning companion for me. I have two comments/questions:
    1. Having read all his biographies and many commentaries by those who knew him, I remain puzzled by the nature of his own spiritual training. He expressed himself as if deeply trained in both phenomenology and Soto Zen. This way of expressing himself is quite different from the language and sensibilities of Leadbeater or the ‘risen masters’. He apparently did not read anything of either phenomenology or Zen. So I am wondering how his way of expressing himself was cultivated ( deep insight can be expressed in other ways and styles ). I can understand his motivation for finding a different style of teaching to theosophy ( Nitya and disillusionment). I could go on about this context. But suffice to ask: Do you have any thoughts about Krishnamurti’s own training and how it got to be the sophisticated style and language that emerged?
    2. On his experience of ‘otherness’. I am wondering if I have a slightly different take than you on the full import of his experience of what he called the ‘other’. It may not indicate a dualism. It could be that the paradox of openness and completeness means that that there could be both a deep dwelling in the most essential self as well as an openness to something always larger that is coming towards one (not resisting being located and specific ). Home and adventure. So, one may not need the immensity of ‘otherness’ to be ‘integrated’, but just allow it to continue to be ‘otherness’. I would value your comments.

  24. Dear les.
    It is obvious that K developed his own language and way of expressing his understanding. this reflects his experience and realization. This is not that unusual. And the fact that it sounds like Zen is because some of his realizations are known by Zen. I am not surprised that he used similar language for I would have done the same. It is wonderful that K discovered for himself what Zen had developed throughout the centuries.

    One can be in the essential self and recognize that one dwells is something larger. But K referred to the Otherness as something that comes to the room, in fact to his left side. I don’t think it is complete dualism. But that the otherness is actually his own being, on a different level, which he frequently could not see it so.

    hope this is helpful

  25. What I really love about Krishnamurti was his clear understanding of how to break from the past completely and allow a true mutation to come forth instantly that changes all of humanity right now. As he said close to his death, he likened himself to Thomas Edison. He has done all the hard work, It is up to others now to flick the switch. He showed the potential of love in pure action. I have yet to meet a teacher currently incarnated who realizes love deep enough as he did to see it’s action thoroughly through its core expressions of experience, knowing/being and pure potentiality interacting together in ever deeper recognitions of love.
    In case I am not seen, let me say a little more on that. Experience is all of the past and a proof love never dies. Knowing/being is consciousness and its content collapsed into a love that is realized as the unobserved observed recognized only by an unobserved observer, and potentiality is that which goes beyond the story of love as “it”, “me”, “you” and “us” and all of evolution up to now. The “otherness” mention by K. lead me to this video which caught my attention. I was first excited hoping someone was observing the pure potentiality beyond states of progression and experience that nearly everyone clings to and could share in such a way that would allow the view ahead to be seen. Instead, as I watched, I realized it was more of a backwards into experience, which is ok, but it sort of nulled the excitement for me a bit. Love expressing in potentiality as far as I can see right now goes beyond the story and experience of me (in the bigger sense) as a human being (all of humanity) and is looking now to participate in the universe as a galactic being. We need to step up our game and stop playing around in the eternal past. When listening to this video, as I just hinted, my immediate response was a bit of disappointment and then a feeling to go deeper and start sharing. So…. as one realized being communing with another, let me share what I see.
    I am seeing into the love expressed here as a movement into a living past. All paths are a play into the living past existing now as experience. Krishnamurti encouraged inquiry and so I ask myself openly and respectfully. Why is one seeking to understand the experience of krishnamurti here? This is the opposite to what he asked. He spoke directly and encouraged inquiry, knowing potentiality was the true dynamic drive of love realizing itself. I can’t help but see that the nudge to view the failure of Krishnamurti to ask his peers of his time is but a mirroring of my own experience now. See me here! Does the experience of overcoming my own pain and realizing the blockage really add anything to potentiality? Real change does not come from experience or any path. It is instant and immediate right now. What potentiality does Krishnamurti pain reveal? He expressed humanity’s urgent need to change. Sir, lets drop experience for a moment and see love as potentiality unfolding. His pain was humanity’s pain. Can you see this?

  26. Hello Kristian,
    I am glad you viewed the video and you are here engaging with your response to it. Exactly what I envisioned; an ongoing inquiry by many people.

    It is true that love actualizes the potential. However, it actualizes it in experience, whether experience of realty or action in the the world. Potentiality by itself is nothing; it has to manifest its possibilities and these what humans experience. You said it exactly; it is the interplay between potential and experience/action. Nondual Buddhism will say it is between emptiness and appearance. So here we meet; no problem.

    I don’t know if you had read Krishnamurti’s discussion with his biographer, Mary Lutyens, in The Years of Fulfillment: He was exploring with her and Mary Zimbalist what he is about. He was trying to understand himself, which he said he could not himself. He wanted to know the meaning of his empty mind as a boy, the force that appeared in his room as the Otherness, his mutation that did not happen to anybody else who listened to his teaching, and so on. He thought they can find out, that maybe somebody else can understand him. Here are excerpts from this book:
    “ML: Might someone else be able to find out? And would it be right to enquire?
    K: You might be able to because you are writing about it. I cannot. If you and Maria [MZ] sat down and said, ‘Let us enquire’, I’m pretty sure you could find out. Or do it alone. I see something: what I said is true–I can never find out. Water can never find out what water is. That is quite right. If you find out I’ll corroborate it.
    ML: You would know if it were right?
    K: Can you feel it in the room? It is getting stronger and stronger. My head is starting. if you asked the question and said, ‘I don’t know’, you might find out. If I was writing it I would state all this. I would begin with the boy completely vacant.
    ML: Do you mind it said that you want it explained?
    K: I don’t care. Say what you like. I’m sure if others put their minds to this they can do it.
    ………………. I returned to London awed by the responsibility he had put on us: he was absolutely sure that we could find out the truth about him if we tried, but I was still reluctant to believe that he himself could not help more towards discovering the truth………….
    ……….. Could I find out? The sense of protection he has always felt and his repeated insistence on his vacant mind were the chief clues to go upon. Could I find out? the challenge was thrilling, intoxicating.”

    I don’t know if Mary Lutyens ever found out. She wrote the different segments of her biography of him, and that is all I know from what she did. But it is clear he wanted others to find out what was his truth, what was he about, how to explain his experience and understand it all the way from his childhood when he felt vacant to his headaches and the appearance of the Otherness.

    I think many had written biographies and studies of K to understand him, or give more understanding of what was happening in him and around him.

    An important part of the labor of love in my talk is to give my understanding of K, the understanding that he asked for. I think he wanted himself to be understood for he thought it will be useful for others. Again, his expression of love, that his truth will be discovered, which will be the gift of love to others.

    If you read his own writings, especially Krishnamurti’s Notebook, but also his Commentaries on Living, you will see he was simply writing down his experience of himself and reality. He wrote this for others. He wrote about his experiences for obviously he believed people reading about them will be useful for them. In your language, it was an expression of his love. So he did not shy away from writing about his experiences, as an expression of love. He wanted others to go through Mutation, and he did many things for that.

    In my talk, I was mostly giving my understanding of his experiences, for most people don’t understand them. I was, in some sense, fulfilling his love for his experiences to be known. In my talk, I am following his love as the expression of love revealing the secrets of his experiences.

    Many of the experiences he wrote about are still potential for humanity. But not many know in experience this potential they have. I am simply adding my love to his love for the potential of humanity to be actualized. It is the same love, for those who understand that love is one.

    His pain is humanity’s pain. .But it is a specific pain, which he did not understand, so its potential was not revealed then. I am contributing towards such revelation.

    What is love if not out of love greater revelation of what is potential becomes actual, becomes experienced and understood!

    We can drop past experience, but love reveals new experience., It reveals the secrets of reality. There are many ways love does this. Rumi wrote poetry and told stories. In this talk I do something different. I respond to Krishnamurti’s call for understanding him and his experience. And this is love revealing what is potential for humanity. For many, such expression of my understanding of his unusual experiences is some of the potential of humanity revealed. This was part of my intent, not merely to describe experiences.

    If you are interested in how I see reality as a potentiality with never ending realizations of truth, read my book, Runaway Realization.

    I thank you for giving me the opportunity to reveal more explicitly what were the main motives behind this talk I gave about K’s experiences.,

  27. Hi Hameed – Thanks for this teaching series on Krishnamurti. K’s writings and lectures have been a constant companion along my entire spiritual journey and I have at times found great freedom in his teachings, and at other times, frustration.

    With regard to ‘the observer is the observed’, over the years, I have had various interpretations of this concept based on self observation, along with my reading and reflections. My current thinking is that K is talking about what is often called in spiritual circles, ‘the witness’ – but that he is clarifying what ‘the witness’ really is. I think K is implying that many spiritual seekers/meditators believe that when they are embodying ‘the witness’, that they are somehow separating themselves from their ego/persona/conditioning, when in fact, they are still fully operating within the ego self system. He is saying that ‘the witness’ is still ‘me/ego/persona’ although I THINK it is actually separate from the ego because I purposely try to embody a ‘choiceless awareness’ in order to observe things as they are without my ego filter coming into play.. in other words, ‘the witness’ is still ‘me’, not pure consciousness without a self – this ‘witness’ is still the ‘ego/persona’ along with its story/beliefs/filters. And while I think I am separating myself from my persona/ego/self through ‘choiceless awareness’, I am, in fact, my conditioned self trying to act as pure conscious awareness – a sort of self deception is taking place.

    In reality, there actually is a ‘pure consciousness’ that is my true existence, which is ultimately my True Self, however, on top of that pure consciousness, an ‘ego/persona’ is created that is continually filtering my experience, and that in spiritual practice, a person often thinks when they embody ‘the witness’ that it is separate from what is observed – when in actuality, the ego/persona is taking the position of ‘the witness’ thinking that it is observing what the ego/persona is doing when in fact, it IS the ego/persona mistaking itself for pure consciousness – in actuality, it is the ego observing the ego, like a hall of mirrors.

    What I believe K was saying is that when you realize that what you thought was ‘pure consciousness’ is actually your ego, and that what the ego is observing is actually it’s own projections, that realization causes the entire construct to temporarily collapse allowing one to experience the true ‘pure consciousness’ for a moment. But eventually, we always return to ego consciousness as a default, so in a sense, we lose the experience of this realization.

    I would be interested in hearing your thoughts on this. I continue to be grateful for your work and all that you do. – your work has been extremely helpful to Me in my life journey.

  28. Hi John,
    This might be your experience, and it informs your understanding of what K is meaning when he says the “the observer is the observed.” It is obviously a useful way for you to understand this part of his teaching.

    I take it differently. That K’s teaching is far more subtle, and unique. Many teachings that emphasize witnessing discuss witnessing that is separate from the witness and witnessing that is not separate from the witness. Usually, the witness is pure consciousness or awareness, and that when it is not separate it means the witnessed is a manifestation within the same field of consciousness.

    I understand K to go further and subtler in this teaching. I understand his teaching is that one’s being, consciousness or true identity is the same as the witnessed. The “observer is the observed” indicates to me K’s attempt to point to an unusual and rare realization, that goes beyond witnessing. I give examples in my lecture to explore and explain this point, so you might go to the lecture to understand what I am saying here in more concrete terms.

    So if the observer is the observed, and the observed is a bird, then K means he is experiencing himself as the bird. This does not mean. he is talking about pure consciousness, ego or true self. This realization is beyond such conceptualizations. He and the bird are the same thing, the same experience, in this realization. I think this is so rare a realization that many do not even get to understand what he is talking about.

    I hope this is useful and may it add to your understanding of K’s teaching.

  29. K seemed to be less interested in showing off his mystical experiences and teaching people how to imitate them. This is quite upsetting for highly realized beings who can’t shut their mouth blabbering 24*7 about how wonderful their experiences were. But instead, he tried to help people stumble on the art of being alive to life and let it take them wherever it took them–and then they will report to him.

  30. K’s initial awakening was a robotic copy of the system he was trained in. He was still showing how good a robot he is. How a well-trained robot he is. Later he realized that any fool in that system if trained exactly like him would end up so. He realized life does not waste time creating carbon copies let alone awakened copies–this hurts carbon copy makers for obvious reasons.

Leave a Comment

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

Scroll to Top