October 2025.
I attended a seminar in Sydney a month or so ago. One of the main talks at the seminar was about J. Krishnamurti, and 10 or so themes in his teachings. The talk was given by someone who was familiar with JK since the 1970s and had attended some talks in person. I thought the seminar was great, and the themes really motivated me to take a deeper look into JK and his teachings and 'approach'.
Several weeks later, I was in a position where I had some free time to do a deep dive and really immerse myself in the teachings of Krishnamurti. I purchased some talks (from 1969, February in the US), and this set had about 4 talks, each 90 mins. I also found a massive amount of talks, dialogues, and the like in podcasts and on YT. To their credit, the Foundation has kept excellent recordings, and much of it is freely available.
I was inspired by some of the first talks. Topics ranged from society, man's condition, the mind, observation, conditioning, and much more. JK's style of speaking and delivery was top-notch. A perfect speaker in a way. Yes, he had been trained well by the TS and the upper echelons of society. And it came out in the way he spoke and direct inquiry in the present moment with the audience. I loved how he made people do 'the work' on the spot, and really forced people to observe and enquire in the audience.
His commentary on self-observation is perfect. Nobody explains self-observation better. The problem is that he doesn't give and structured approach on how to do it. The description and reasons for doing it are given perfectly. The approach is way too vague to be useful to anybody listening.
Over the following days, as I continued, however, I became more and more disillusioned with JK's approach (or non-approach and non-structure as he would have it). Issues and cracks appeared in the teachings he delivered. Sometimes he would overgeneralise and severely look down on ALL and every religious tradition, method, system, etc.. labelling monks as fools or absent-minded simpletons lost in their rituals and routines. Formal practice was derided. Zen and yoga, all just tricks. This didn't bother me too much, as there was a grain of truth in it.
However, the more I heard, the worse it became. Krishnamurti seemed to be completely mixing levels of experience.. asking why certain spiritual methods hadn't fixed society and its disorder and chaos.. as if any philosophy, method, or system, including his own, ever could. Sometimes he gave vague pointers to having a more mindful approach, being more engaged in the moment with one's experience and environment- yet without any tools or training to do so-- all structured training, tools, methods, etc. were "tricks" based on conditioning.
Yet Krishnamurti himself repeated the same ideas almost at each talk! He repeatedly said "the description is not the described", "the observer is the observed", etc., etc. he gave the same enquiries at different talks-- all of this repetition apparently wasn't static or conditioning, but what excepted it? He told people to deny all authority, including the speaker, and yet for 40 years he held talks with crowds, many of whom regarded him as their guru or teacher. Groups followed him for decades, dependent on more talks.
Talk after talk, 1970s, 1980s etc.. people just weren't "getting it", or any closer than they were from talks in the 1960s. As there was no training given, or structure, people were almost expected to magically gain insight or the experiences he kept offering people. They didn't happen. And people are still as confused about JK's teachings as they were during his time.
I had to lay down the talks and the books.. my deep dive was pretty much over in a week or so. However, there's some parts of Krishnamurti's teachings that are great, and have inspired so many modern day teachers. People like Eckhart Tolle, Barry Long, Osho, Ouspensky, and many more all seem to have picked up parts of Krishnamurti's philosophy or delivery. But the limitations present, such as having no system, no way, no approach, nothing.. seems to have been peculiar to Krishnamurti himself. It appears that JK somehow managed to gain some insight along the way, or randomly discovered the whole observer illusion, no-self deal, but couldn't impart that insight in any effective way that would allow his students to (ironically) depart from their very dependence that JK was daily trying to stop.
On the topic of "conditioning", which is one of JK's central themes, it is always explained as a negative thing. JK relates it directly to the past (or it IS the past), and anything coming from conditioning is therefore dead, past, mechanical in nature, and something to overcome of transcend. But using Krishnamurti's own inquiry-- Is this actually and always true? Is ALL conditioning bad? Well, I'd have to say, no, not all conditioning is a bad thing. Being conditioned to jump out of the way of an oncoming car seems to be good conditioning. Being conditioned to get up each morning at the same time, or go to bed early seems to be a healthy conditioning for maintaining one's body. And "deconditioning" too, is sometimes needed. Deconditioning in the form of affirming the truth of something vs what we've been conditioned to believe can be helpful at times. For example, having a phobia about spiders, or some other psychological trigger, can benefit from deconditioning in terms of seeing the fearful object in a new light, or conditioning oneself to accept difficult people in life. These are just examples. JK would deny that there's any utility in this, in favour of a spontaneous, fresh, and present experience. And he's correct for certain situations, but of course, "one size fits all" doesn't work for the majority of aspirants. People need conditioning on occasion, likewise with structure, training, discipline, and practice. Making a sweeping removal of all of these concepts and activities ensures the teachings remain untenable and purely a philosophy to think about, rather than anything of practical use.
Some decent critiques I found on the internet are below. They're not entirely true, but there's a grain of truth within each, so I post them below.
Still, however, Krishnamurti is a GOOD teacher/place to do a deep dive, if you have time. You can learn (or unlearn) a lot if you immerse yourself in his teachings. However, they're a stopping place, or rather, a resting place to use to deepen one's inquiries and awareness of one's current state. Nobody stops with JK's teachings alone, however, and despite his protestations against systems and processes, training IS really needed to get a better picture of where he's standing and talking from. Krishnamurti was fortunate (if we're to trust his own admissions) in that he didn't need to awaken from a sleep as deep as most mere mortals find themselves in. In fact, he mentions a few times that he just didn't have an ego functioning from a young age. In another chat, he mentioned, "I've been at this for a long time, since age 15". Bear this in mind when listening to a teacher who doesn't have the same experience as most people when it comes to dealing with the survival instincts of the ego and working to transcend the false self altogether.
----
Did Gurdjieff have any personal contact with Krishnamurti?
There is no concrete evidence to suggest that G.I. Gurdjieff and Jiddu Krishnamurti ever had a personal meeting or direct, sustained contact, despite both being prominent spiritual figures in the early to mid-20th century.
They operated in different, though sometimes overlapping, spiritual circles and geographical locations.
Gurdjieff focused on his "Fourth Way" teachings, which often involved groups and intense practical work, primarily in France in his later years.
Krishnamurti, after dissolving the Order of the Star in 1929, stressed that "Truth is a pathless land" and discouraged followers, institutions, or organized systems, which is contrary to the Gurdjieff Work's structure.
However, some of Gurdjieff's students, such as P.D. Ouspensky, were contemporaries of Krishnamurti and it's noted that Krishnamurti was reportedly attending meetings held by Ouspensky in Hollywood, California, in the 1930s, establishing relations with people in the Gurdjieff Work. This shows an indirect connection through their respective followers.
How about Osho (Rajneesh) who spoke of JK during some talks?
Osho held a complex and often contradictory view of Jiddu Krishnamurti, which he expressed as a blend of deep admiration and sharp critique. He considered Krishnamurti to be one of the most significant and intelligent spiritual figures of the 20th century, yet ultimately a failure as a spiritual "master."
Here are the key aspects of Osho's take on Krishnamurti:
1. The Deep Affinity and Oneness (The Praise)
Osho often spoke of Krishnamurti as an "enlightened being" and expressed a profound, non-physical connection with him.
"Oneness": Osho stated that he felt such a deep affinity with Krishnamurti that "to talk of connection is not right; connection is possible only between two separate things. I feel almost a oneness with him."
A "Pure Fire": He described Krishnamurti as having the purest philosophical and intellectual understanding of the truth, saying, "If you hear him, if you allow him, if you open your doors to him, he is pure fire. He will burn all that is rubbish in you."
Intellectual Genius: Osho called him the "most intelligent man of this century," and an "intellectual genius."
2. The Critique: "A Philosopher, Not a Master" (The Failure)
The central point of Osho's criticism was that Krishnamurti's approach was too intellectual, bypassing the human element needed for transformation.
"Failed to Touch the Heart": Osho's main point of difference was that "Krishnamurti failed because he could not touch the human heart; he could only reach the human head." He argued that the heart needs a different approach.
No Devices or Methods: Krishnamurti did not provide any practical techniques or devices for people to transform what they intellectually understood, which Osho believed was necessary for modern people to experience the truth. Osho said, "he was not creating the right climate, the right milieu in which it could become a seed."
Intellectual Preparation: Osho saw Krishnamurti's role as a preparatory one, saying, "Krishnamurti has prepared the ground for me. He has prepared people intellectually for me; now it is my work to take those people deeper than intellect, to the heart; and deeper than the heart, to the being."
The Problem with "No Guru": While Krishnamurti was vehemently against gurus and following, Osho argued that this stance itself was given by a "guru." He noted that people who claimed to follow Krishnamurti's command not to follow anyone were, in fact, following him.
3. The Personal Relationship
Despite their differing views and methods, Osho claimed a playful and deep connection with a man he never physically met.
Osho said he had a "tremendous communion that needs no language, that need not be of physical presence."
He also mentioned that they would "criticize each other," and that he enjoyed "joking with the old man, provoking the old man" by, for example, sending his own followers in their distinctive red robes to sit in the front row of Krishnamurti's talks.
what are other criticisms of krishnamurti by other spiritual teachers?
Jiddu Krishnamurti, due to his radical rejection of all spiritual authority, gurus, and organized belief systems, often stood in sharp contrast to other prominent spiritual teachers. The most notable criticisms came from those closest to his philosophical space.
Here are the main criticisms of J. Krishnamurti by other spiritual figures:
1. U.G. Krishnamurti (A Fellow Radical and Critic)
Uppaluri Gopala Krishnamurti (U.G.), who was not related to Jiddu but had an association with him, became perhaps his most scathing critic. U.G.'s perspective was entirely anti-spiritual, asserting that there is no such thing as enlightenment.
"He Has Seen the Sugar Cube, But Never Tasted It": This is U.G.'s most famous critique. It implies that Jiddu Krishnamurti's vast, intelligent discourses on truth and freedom were merely intellectual concepts, not based on an authentic, biological transformation (which U.G. claimed to have experienced, calling it "The Calamity").
The "Holy Business": U.G. viewed Jiddu Krishnamurti, despite his anti-guru stance, as part of the "holy business," selling a concept of liberation that did not exist. For U.G., the talk of ending suffering and psychological freedom was an illusion created by thought itself.
2. Osho (The Philosopher vs. The Master)
As detailed previously, Osho's view was the most nuanced but was ultimately a criticism of his method, not his wisdom.
Failure to Touch the Heart: Osho criticized Krishnamurti for being too intellectual, stating he "failed because he could not touch the human heart; he could only reach the human head."
Lack of Practical Tools: Osho believed that while Krishnamurti's words were true, they were not delivered with the "devices" (meditation techniques and catharsis) necessary for the modern individual to actually experience the transformation. Osho saw his own role as taking the intellectually prepared "Krishnamurti people" into the heart and being.
3. Implications from Advaita/Gurus (Ramana Maharshi's Way)
While Ramana Maharshi never directly criticized Krishnamurti, the different conclusions drawn from their similar core premises often lead to an implied critique by their respective followers (and Osho):
Focus on Action vs. Pure Being: Krishnamurti was intensely concerned with the state of the world's suffering and felt compelled to travel and speak widely to help humanity. The traditional Advaita Vedanta and the path of Ramana Maharshi (Self-Inquiry) often prioritize abiding in the "Real Self," where the external world's suffering is seen as an expression of the unreal, and the jnani (one with knowledge) is not moved to change it.
The Implied Critique: The concern from this camp (as articulated by Osho) is that Krishnamurti's tireless talking was still a form of action based on suffering (sympathy/guilt), suggesting a subtle incompleteness in his state, whereas a true sage (like Ramana Maharshi) simply is—and that being itself is the transformative power.
Further points on some differences between JK and RM:
While both J. Krishnamurti and Ramana Maharshi pointed to a state of liberation that is our true nature, their approaches and emphasis contained key differences:
Core Methodologies
| Teacher | Primary Method | Description |
| Ramana Maharshi | Self-Enquiry (Atma-Vichara) | The core practice is the constant inward query, "Who am I?" The aim is to trace the "I-thought" back to its source, the Self (Atman/Brahman), leading to the dissolution of the ego-mind and realization of one's inherent being as the ever-present Reality, which is peace and bliss. |
| J. Krishnamurti | Choiceless Awareness / Observation without the Observer | The practice involves total awareness of "what is" (thoughts, feelings, actions, external reality) without judgment, comparison, or choice. The key insight is that the observer (the I, the censor, the ego) is the observed; when this is deeply seen, the division ceases, and a state of intelligence and freedom from conditioning arises. |
Stance on Effort and Authority
J. Krishnamurti famously asserted that "truth is a pathless land" and strongly rejected all forms of authority, systems, methods, gurus, and spiritual practices (sadhana), including his own teachings being turned into a system. He emphasized the immediacy of seeing the truth, which no effort or time-bound practice could bring about. The revolution must be radical, total, and now, arising from direct insight.
Ramana Maharshi was the embodiment of the Guru tradition (although he never positioned himself as a 'guru' in the traditional sense and often pointed out that the real guru was the 'inner guru'. He often gave his teaching through silence (mauna) and maintained this was the highest form of his teaching. While he held that the Self is ever-present and liberation is our natural state (not something to be attained), he acknowledged that effort (abhyasa) in the form of Self-Enquiry is necessary to remove the obstruction of the mind (ego/ignorance). His teaching is closely aligned with the classical Advaita Vedanta tradition.
Vocabulary and Philosophical Context
Ramana Maharshi's teachings are rooted in the ancient Indian tradition of Advaita Vedanta (non-dualism). Key terms like Self, Brahman, Jnani (liberated one), Jivanmukti (liberation while alive), and the importance of stillness (summa iru - just be) are central to his expression. Noting that this was also due to the time and place where the teaching was delivered, and that many of his questioners were coming from a traditional Hindu spiritual background.
J. Krishnamurti intentionally avoided traditional spiritual or Sanskrit terminology, believing it was burdened with conditioning and beliefs. He used modern, psychological language focused on concepts like conditioning, image-making, the observer and the observed, choiceless awareness, intelligence, and freedom from the known to directly address the modern, often non-religious, mind (especially for Western audiences).
Emphasis on the World and Action
Ramana Maharshi's teaching largely focused on the inward realization of the Self, stating that once the ego is gone, the actions of the liberated one (Jnani) occur spontaneously and faultlessly, regardless of their outward appearance (passive or active). He lived primarily in one location, Arunachala, radiating his presence.
J. Krishnamurti showed a strong concern for the suffering and conflict in the world, believing that fundamental social change could only arise through radical psychological change in the individual. His choiceless awareness was a means to end inner conflict, which he saw as the root of all outer conflict. He traveled and lectured globally, actively engaging with the world's problems.
Though their methods and language appear distinct, Ramana Maharshi himself noted that effortless and choiceless awareness is our real nature and aligned with his teaching. Whether they were talking about the same thing is a bit unclear.
4. Criticism of Personal Life and Organizational Hypocrisy
A different category of criticism focuses on the disconnect between Krishnamurti's radical teaching of non-authority, freedom, and non-attachment, and certain aspects of his life.
Maintaining a Structure of Support: Despite dissolving the Order of the Star and denouncing all organizations, Krishnamurti's work was supported by foundations, schools, and wealthy individuals, which required a functional, institutional structure that contradicted his rejection of authority.
Personal Relationships: His long-term, secret love affair with Rosalind Williams, including three aborted pregnancies, became public after her daughter wrote a book, Lives in the Shadow with Krishnamurti. Critics seized upon this, arguing that his private life—marked by attachment, secrecy, and dependency—was hypocritical to his teaching of "love without attachment" and freedom from psychological conditioning.
---------------------
#krishnamurti
#advaita
#awakening
#truth
#meditation
#insight
