The Teachings of Jiddu Krishnamurti

The Teachings of Jiddu Krishnamurti

Ratings: 8.65/10 from 147 users.

The Teachings of Jiddu KrishnamurtiJiddu Krishnamurti was born on 11 May 1895 in Madanapalle, a small town in south India. He and his brother were adopted in their youth by Dr Annie Besant, then president of the Theosophical Society. Dr Besant and others proclaimed that Krishnamurti was to be a world teacher whose coming the Theosophists had predicted. To prepare the world for this coming, a world-wide organization called the Order of the Star in the East was formed and the young Krishnamurti was made its head.

In 1929, however, Krishnamurti renounced the role that he was expected to play, dissolved the Order with its huge following, and returned all the money and property that had been donated for this work.

From then, for nearly sixty years until his death on 17 February 1986, he traveled throughout the world talking to large audiences and to individuals about the need for a radical change in mankind.

Krishnamurti is regarded globally as one of the greatest thinkers and religious teachers of all time. He did not expound any philosophy or religion, but rather talked of the things that concern all of us in our everyday lives, of the problems of living in modern society with its violence and corruption, of the individual's search for security and happiness, and the need for mankind to free itself from inner burdens of fear, anger, hurt, and sorrow. He explained with great precision the subtle workings of the human mind, and pointed to the need for bringing to our daily life a deeply meditative and spiritual quality.

Krishnamurti belonged to no religious organization, sect or country, nor did he subscribe to any school of political or ideological thought. On the contrary, he maintained that these are the very factors that divide human beings and bring about conflict and war. He reminded his listeners again and again that we are all human beings first and not Hindus, Muslims or Christians, that we are like the rest of humanity and are not different from one another. The full library of his teachings is right here.

More great documentaries

110 Comments / User Reviews

  1. This documentary is actually called 'Krishnamurti - with a silent mind'.

  2. Love this film. Watched the interviews a number of times. Krishnamurti couldn't be more relevant today, and his critique of society seems prescient. He was the one telling us in the 60s & 70s that we were destroying the Earth, and now look at the almost finished job. His focus on what is, on the fact, on truth, on the evils of authority and belief, on the deceptions and falsehoods of the mind - all these themes seem strikilingly relevant today, in the age of misinformation, advertisements, propaganda, lies and political spin. For him, love implies freedom: you can't impose law on love - love is its own law. And therefore there is no choice in love: love is its own law after all. You can't be a slave to love: if you love, than you, the slave, are not.

  3. Your perception of reality is perceived by the limits of your knowledge. If you dont understand or examine what you are being told, then you are getting answers without learning on your own. Its improbable for one person to attain all knowledge in the worlds past and present. You can attain as much knowledge about whats around you, but you must be willing to understand how little you can actually attain in regatds to knowledge.

  4. religion might be ancient form of education because no paper making....the reason to eradicate education...probably eradicate saturation repeating situation of constructive or destructive

  5. Nature is speaking (jiddu krisnamurthi)

  6. Maybe the most intelligent mind that ever existed.

    1. deep reverence for J.K

  7. Regarding the criticism here of Mr. Krishnamurti, I find most of it laughable. The very point he makes is to THINK for YOURSELF. I don't follow him or anyone else. Why should I abandon my own brain and follow anyone else? I do find that he makes many good points that I have arrived at on my own. So I quite enjoy it when I find someone else who thinks so deeply on life as I do. This world is filled with hate and prejudice and little-minded people. What we need is more compassion and love. I don't need any religion, philosophy, or moral leader to tell me the difference between right and wrong. Thanks but I'll continue to think for myself. And I'll continue to try to grow and be a positive influence on those around me. But I want people to think ... and be kind. And anyone who hates me for this is just plain ignorant, and there are no shortage of these sorts of people. I'd like to see more people like Mr. Krishnamurti, who are capable of thinking and changing and loving. And when I say loving, I mean the type of love that is not earned, but the same type of love that Jesus demonstrated, even to those who would crucify him. That type of love is only possible from an enlightened individual.

    1. Is it possible loving and at the same time thinking ?

    2. Wow! So well said and I completely agree with you Richard. GOD BLESS US ALL

  8. This film promised so much on human consciousness but failed to deliver. I loved his revelation/awakening in the garden but that is where it ended. My husband wanted to watch it but I grew tired of his pointless speeches. He was not an academic and it was not his fault. He was taken away from his family, culture, language to England to be educated. That truly f....ed his life up. The loss of his brother did the rest. He lost it but mysteriously he still pulled in the crowds. Do people blindly follow cult figures even when it is clear they have nothing to say?

    1. I've listened to HUNDREDS of his talks, and I wouldn't do so if I found he had nothing to say. And I'm hardly alone: he's often rated as the greatest seer since Buddha, and it isn't mass hallucination. What seems far more likely is that you haven't understood what he is saying, but that others have. He isn't a thinker at all, but uses language to discuss and describe salient aspects of the phenomena of life and mind for the purposes of freeing them from all social-historical conditioning.

  9. out of all these comments only one or two show ANY understanding whatsoever of Krishnamurti... the real person, not UG or whoever the moron, K didn't TEACH! he spoke of how to find truth, of how religion is false, of how our thoughts are programmed! man can you tell that by the comments in this column!! he spoke of the thousands of years of suffering of mankind, because of religion-nationalism-racism-political dogma and regimes, he spoke clearly, intelligently, compassionately yet many religious fascists try to undermine and corrupt his findings, why because they challenge their petty stupid fears and beliefs, or maybe they fear people may find the truth. Whatever it doesn't matter K would just have a little chuckle....poor people

  10. I started watching the video having a negative prejudice about him, but now I am much more sympathetic towards his views. I see resemblance with some great thinkers, like Nietzsche and Heidegger.

    But I have two objections (that might turn out to me mere misunderstandings).
    1. His absolute rejection of comparison and quantitative data. Whether we like it or not, science is based on comparison and quantitative data. As a quick thought experiment, I ask myself: if I happened to be in a plane without a pilot, and a random person stood up and said "I will fly the plane because I say I can", would I allow him? Probably not, and neither would he. Thus, following his absolute rejection of comparison, we would have to reject science and scientific progress.

    2. His mocking of the "interested in myself" concept. Again, related to my first objection, his views against individual interest, in favor of a vague global interest in-itself, lead to a paradox. He himself asks towards the end of the video "why don't you change?". For this question to have any meaning, individual interest is a necessary condition. Interest in ones' self for the sake of interest in-itself seems to me to lead to this idealistic state of disinterest, Nirvana. On the other hand, his question "why don't you change?" can only acquire significance through the interest in ones' self, because only then can it be realized in our everyday world. Changing ones' self, improving and exploring your own person, is how the world changes. And he seems to realize that, but fails to incorporate it in his view. Because, if, as he says, each one embodies the whole of humanity, then, through genuine interest in ones' self, one works for the improvement of the whole of humanity.

    These are my two cents. I honestly appreciate his views, but in the end, they are too eastern, and too idealistic/metaphysical, for me to be able to embrace them. I cannot embrace an understanding of the human being that rejects the importance of relations with others (as a source of collision), and tries to reach a state of mind that is so spiritual, that the pain of life is forgotten.

    1. With regards number 1, he's not against comparison or quantitive data in the field of ordinary material life - rather, he outlines the destructive consequences of psychological comparison and says nothing against quantitive data. In many ways his approach couldn't be more scientific: it's all about seeing what is, as it is, and out of that understanding of what is emerges. Sounds simplistic, but listen to his insight - as you say, he grasped things that Nietzsche and Heidegger groped around for. It's because he's a seer, not a thinker.
      2. You have to distinguish between 'interest in myself', and 'self-interest' as in 'selfish'. If by interest in myself you mean an interest in your life, in the way you are, in what you think etc, then this is precisely what is needed in order to watch oneself. But selfishness is destroying the Earth: self-interest in that sense means being unaware of that which falls outside the sphere of my own personal self-interest, which is a form of myopia, blindness, stupidity. It's a point that is easy to see today. No-one cares about hunger or climate destruction in other countries because of self-interest on the individual and national levels. Hence self-interest IS destroying the Earth, precisely as he warned us 50 years ago. Everything he said has only gotten more relevant, more salient, as time goes on.

  11. I haven't read much of Alan Watts - (some, but very little) - Someone else brought him to my attention - I'll purchase one of his books - being introduced to a philosopher by way of a video is not a good Idea, watching a video is too easy to be distracted or lose concentration - as one hears something of interest and wants to focus on that one bit of an input or information the video just continues on and then you lose continuity - true I could pause the video -

  12. It's almost a given to read Krishnamurti - many times i'll come across one sentence of his and read it and reread it and contemplate it and just put the book down and let the small piece of wisdom digest - I can't do that with a video - and that goes for all philosophy, one must digest it to enable the transformation of the student, the self?

  13. Ah the "naughty and nice" program - must be a remnant from santa clause teachings at an early age :-)

    Perhaps when we can let go of the programmed duallities we can actually start to think for ourselves

  14. One can not understand what J Krishnamurti understands without living it. No one is all good all the time we all have this problem. If this man has something to offer good so be it. I am not concerned with his naughty past; this is a given.

    1. "One can not understand what J Krishnamurti understands without living It." That is right, your knowledge creates your experience and your experience reinforces that knowledge, it's a vicious circle. Words cannot transfer so it is pointless in having these discussions.. But is it really all that pointless for us? Do we really know if words can or cannot be transferred,l for 100% certainty? We only eat ideas and not food. It is very important for one to test everything for and by himself to see if there is anything behind those abstracts that those gurus throw at us.

    2. If he cannot live the life he `preaches` what chance have others.

  15. I can't believe people are arguing over Krishnamurti. Forget about him. Forget about Krishnamurti. LISTEN to what is being said. If you listen then you will see the truth of what is being said, or the falseness. What Krishnamurti did during his life means nothing. If you are listening and you are still thinking "Krishna did this, krishna did that, K didn't do this... then the FACT is, you aren't listening :) x

    1. You are right, art of listening doesn't exist. In that case we are only translating his barks depending on the way we've experienced those particular words. (Knowledge creates our experiences and our experience reinforces that knowledge that we have about ourselves, it's a vicious circle.) All we can do is interpret and never listen.. As long as we are translating through the help of knowledge, which is just memory in movement, so long we continue to not listen to anyone, but ourselves.. Another words we end up losing most of the compassion that is naturally there inside us all. The mind has every trick up its sleeves. All we seem to do is trade one illusion for another. There isn't a thing to get from anyone, we already have what we want.. Actually we do not even know what exactly it is that we want, and that is the thing that has created such a neurotic situation for us.

  16. To Peter Lee,

    What a great comment and thanks for the description of this great human - for I too am "more someone who simply wants to start a conversation" but in a world of reactions to imaginary affronts upon the ego, they are almost impossible.

  17. Some people knew him personally thought that he was not living his teachings, you can ask google about this. And also, If nobody has been enlightened by studying what he said, maybe he wasn't a good teacher at all.

    1. How do you know; he wasn't. That is because they have not understood him; or about the few people who want to benefit from his work with their association with him. The foundation stopped it; they became bitter and spread rumors.

  18. OK the first video was ok, even if he was using a lot of hypnosis techniques..

    But when he's talking to the kids.. come off it. My grandma spoke more sense.

    1. true, he wasn't at his best form.

  19. superb and well said......

  20. To Hille Kaper,

    To help man kind ask questions, any questions, he had to become what he vehemently warned against: the martyrdom of any man.

    The beauty of Krishnamurti was that he was trying less to be a teacher (which he himself didn't want to be) and more someone who simply wanted to start a conversation. He was a lonely man who simply wanted a kindred spirit.

    Krishnamurti hit a chord with me, not because I wanted to blindly follow a man who everyone said was great, but because he was a kindred spirit. To find the path, one must take that journey alone, and that was his whole point.

    There was never to be a result, what is a result? Can a result simply be another point in a journey? Who defines result? If one had no expectation to begin with, why would there be disappointment? Why should anyone have an expectation to begin with?

    Hille Kaper, my humble opinion is that you missed the beauty of Krishamurti because you looked for a "point". You had a question and you looked for an answer in someone else rather than yourself. And that's really what Krishnamurti is telling us. There is no point, only thought and being aware of life around us. That the only answers you can find are within you.

    I'd like to make two quick points before I end this comment:

    1) Does it really matter if someone with an interesting though had land, houses and a castle? The idea that someone has something that you don't, does that offend you? why? What is the relevance between a man's philosophy and his belongings. You either understand what he's trying to say, or you don't.

    2) By the way, his organization gave him everything a worldly man could want. Money, fame, land, status (as the next coming of the messiah), but stood in front of his followers and said "find your own answers, no man can give them to you" and gave back almost all money and properties. He was a man that had it all and decided to walk away from it.

    1. He was like one of those navy guys who would go from port to port and get all the ladies.. He was hardly ever by himself and far from the lonely guy that you talk of.

    2. But did he, are you absolutely sure that he gave back all the money and properties. No, he certainly did not. Your `almost` amounts to more money than the average person could ever dream of. Nor did he himself manage to live the life he `preached` about.

  21. Awful teaching, worthless teacher. You can listen to him 'til your last breath, it will give no result, instead only increase the confusion and frustration. The joker belonged to no organization, but he owned land, houses, a castle, expensive cars, had mistresses everywhere, started schools and an organization worth 80.000.000 dollars.

    Anyone falling for him, can you please show me what results have come out of his efforts other than thousands disappointed followers, sir?

    1. u gave us a reason to ask questions and Google for more details about his personal life and it does matters....... thanks allot Hille Laper

    2. Where did you get your information from?

    3. What kind of result were you looking for, Hillie? And why?

    4. Don`t forget the fact he had a long-running affair with his best friend`s wife. His morals leave a lot to be desired. If you research him it`s all there in black and white.

  22. I have been studying this man for 31 years. At age 55, I am just starting to comprehend SOME of what he is trying so desperately to convey. As for the affair....I read about it years ago and quite honestly I was relieved. He never condemned love (translate that as sex if you like). And since in my small mind romantic love is just about as good as it gets, I was happy for him.

  23. When murti talks about being a telephone receiver there is better perspective on what the message is ...its the message not the messenger...Anyway there is a great down load on torrent sites that contains about 2.65 gigs of his talks no video ..just audio..fantastic ..

    when things started to stop for me,when changed ac-curd ..i new things were different and that i wasn't alone . but at the same time, i knew how isolated i was by knowing this change had ac-curd...

    sometimes on a Saturday once in a while i sit in my chair and just look out the window all day. and observe my mind what a little terror it is..

    so easily we are fooled into illusions..belief is not mine any more..i have seen how it works its ..i really cant express took so much energy now .just to stay now..and to see very clearly how things really were ..
    the saying all we are is a fart in the wind" ..reminds me of how i was substance a smelly thought life , polluting the hole world with my presence and then just floating away.. lol..

    if u dont understand me ..well say a

    freedom real freedom is not what a man in jail thinks about ,he thinks about being free..freedom real freedom takes energy ,and energy is returned.. thanks vladko..

    1. what an amazing person Krishnamurthi is! his critical thinking and perspectives on life and various issues will challenge any one on this earth! his talks are very much convincing.... and I want to listen him more and more..... could you pls guide how to download his talk what you have mentioned in your msg? thanks a lot!

    2. Try his polar opposite, UG Krishnamurti

  24. As soon as you have commented... you have missed the point. Why? Because, you pushed out what you didn't even know existed.

  25. I am a practitioner of Buddha's teachings and I do believe this guy and Buddha are the exact same. From what I read Jiddu doesn't agree with Buddhism and I can see why. The Buddhas raw words were much like his, but what I think he thought of Buddhism was what it is now today, and I would think the Buddha himself would feel the exact same way, because there is so much struggle (robes, chants, rituals, insense, worship, mantras, scriptures) to attain, when the answer lies simply in reality, now. So in a sense I think he was taught from Buddhism and also many other cultures, but does not attach himself in anyway because he thinks suffering is fought internal rather then external and found no reason to speak about this, because now then he would his message would be skewed. Now what strikes me as odd is both were from India and Brahmin religions, both have left home, both found enlightenment while sitting under a tree, both were "destined to be great leaders", strange? A little but I wouldn't worry about it. So without what happened after the birth of Buddhism, I think these men are strikingly similar and actually if we look at it from a Buddhist view this is what pure enlightenment looks like.

    1. I like your analysis. My thought is that religion is an effort of mankind to categorize a thought or way of thinking. Much like mathematics is man's effort to understand our universe, religion or "spirituality" is our way of trying to categorize and understand our inner most thoughts and questions. However, there truly is no way, category, or organization. We are just a collection of thoughts and ideas. And in fact those ideas are beautiful in itself, with no attachments (ex. buddhism, zen, christianity, hinduism etc...). Always ask, question answers and know that every path is the right one.

    2. How can every path be the right one when so many have died in the name of religion? I guess what zen said is no different from anyone else, they are just empty words and empty phrases is all..

    3. Thanks for your summary- a very good one; it's interesting to note the list of similarities with the Buddha and the fact that such comparison is immaterial. Krishnamurti helps us to thrive on intelligence rather than on thought, desire, memory and ideologies. This he spoke of without malice all along and exuded great compassion and clarity.
      All this as I understand till now. I'm exploring the teachings

  26. His voice sounds like a minimal techno music.

  27. @Om Fetell
    What you say is rather mind bending but I like it! Something very unique and perhaps confrontational to some.

  28. I was first introduced to J. Krishnamurti in 1982 or 83. I purchased one of his books at a yard sale, "The Impossible Question", for .10, I have been reading him ever since. It took me at least ten years to decipher him. I collect his hard back books. I have a hand made leather book/talk of one of his talks in 1934, word for word, it has a hand carved letter K with a carved circle around the K on the outside cover. This man is not a philosopher, not a guru. I argued with him, (his writings), time and again saying to myself, "his thinking is unrealistic as correct as it is because it is not human nature for the mind to think on these terms or in this way! But now i approach 70, this coming January. And i see this is not so for one can think any way one chooses though one might have to prey on it and work on it. But "you are the world", (another of his books), and as you think that is what you manifest in the material world or the "sub atomic world". Order his book, "Education And The Significance Of Life", just for starters. He dispenses with Western and Eastern philosophy not as rubbish, it just simply eradicates.

  29. He taught me in my twenties to observe my mind's doings with energy and no judgment, on the basis that if one sees the need to change the conditioned, trivial, destructive, chattering, mad aspects of the mind, one must observe it in action. Like a hunter, one must be silent and observe its routines with clarity which is not analysis. It's not an easy thing to impart, which is why he spoke for decades on this simple matter.

  30. Fools you all are, looking at the speaker like he has any existence in reality. Look underneath and you'll see the truth, you'll realize that what you're really looking at is your own self. But until you see anything valuable , real, solid in this so called person named Jiddu you're still bounded by vicious ego that creates illusion. That's why you all post these comments, out of ignorance, worshipping this façade projected onto emptiness...and also out of ignorance I post my comment as I cannot wake up form this dream called good and evil.

    1. you accuse of ego whilst condescending all of humanity? you use some big words, but you don't seem very intelligent. alas a fool I am, as if the op has any existence in reality!

    2. I am not very intelligent you're right. Although I can see clearly what does he mean by saying that himself, "the speaker is not important". Do you know why Iain? Because he's an illusion like me and you. Has no existence in reality, it's just a manifestation, surface of something that is real. He said that himself. Is he humble and generous? No, because he doesn't exist. His words are not important till you understand that. Pretty much the same meant master Rinzai when he said “If you meet the Buddha on the road, slay him!”. This is very simple. What you see as Jiddu or Buddha is just your own projection, ignorance and nothing else. Ignore all that, slay it and what's left? No values like generosity and humbleness, no war, no rapes, no peace, no family, no love etc. Nothing there because every little and big thing that you can name demands separated beings that create them which is the idea that causes illusion. Look for the only real thing and you'll see what I'm starting to see. World is empty, no one has more intelligence or wisdom then other.

    3. Beautiful articulated....nothing is everything and everything is nothing, the journey never began but is always on going....I love it.

    4. there is an answer to it ....... anything that comes ,comes out of nothing if you follow the chain like going down to the smallest particle's molecular structure where at some point it would seem as there is nothing to comprehend but then coming out it could be your favorite chocolate is what it should mean ....... so if you learnt to influence the first building block of the dark chocolate and learnt further how to manipulate it then your doing something out of nothing.

      Second thing is about reaching somewhere yet stationary means to me as if all are evolving on the same given individual speed without the other's judgement plainly means no comparison and static

    5. Remembering U.G. Krishnamurti
      Mon, 2007-05-14 00:35 — admin
      U.G. KrishnamurtiU.G. Krishnamurti, lovingly called UG by his friends and admirers all over the world, is no more. The end came on March 22, 2007 at 2.30 pm in an apartment built for him by his friends Lucia, Anita and Giovanni in their villa in Vallecrosia, Italy. As per UG’s advice, with no rituals or funeral rites, the cremation was carried out the next day at 2.45 pm, in Vallecrosia, Italy. He was eighty-eight years old. UG is survived by his erstwhile family, comprising his two daughters, Usha and Bharati, and their respective families and his son, Kumar and his family. But his actual family is much larger than that, extending over the entire globe and consisting of numerous ‘friends’ to whom he has been closer than their own families and indeed their own selves.
      Seven weeks before, UG had a fall and injured himself. This was the second such occurrence in two years. He did not want such an incident to occur once again which would make him further dependent on his friends for his daily maintenance. So he refused medical or other external intervention. He decided to let his body take its own natural course. He was confined to bed and his consumption of food and water became infrequent and then ceased altogether. ‘It’s time to go,’ he declared, joined his palms in namaste, thanked his friends and advised them to return to their places.
      Only his long-time friends, the filmmaker, Mahesh Bhatt, Larry and Susan Morris, and few other friends stayed back to guard his body and do whatever was necessary when the end came. UG did not die of any disease, although he suffered from ‘cardio-spasm’ for many years, which became quite severe in the last days of his life.
      UG did not show the slightest signs of worry or fear about death or concern for his body even at the end of his life. He did not leave any specific instructions as to how to dispose of his dead body. ‘You can throw it on the garbage heap, as far as I am concerned,’ he often would say.
      Responding to questions on death, UG said, ‘Life and death cannot be separated. When what you call clinical death takes place, the body breaks itself into its constituent elements and that provides the basis for the continuity of life. In that sense the body is immortal.’
      UG was born on 9 July 1918, in a Telugu-speaking Brahmin family in Masulipatam, a coastal town in the state of Andhra Pradesh. He lost his mother when he was seven days old and was brought up by his maternal grandfather, who was a noted, wealthy lawyer and a prominent member of the Theosophical Society. UG grew up in a peculiar milieu of Theosophy and orthodox Hindu religious beliefs and practices. Even as a boy he was a rebel yet brutally honest with whatever he did.
      He did his schooling in the town of Gudivada and then his B.A. Honours Course in Philosophy and Psychology at Madras University. But the study of the various philosophical systems and Western psychology made very little impression on him. ‘Where is this mind these chaps have been talking about?’ he once asked his Psychology teacher. It was something extraordinary coming from a student who was hardly twenty years old, particularly when Freud’s ideas were considered to be the last word on human mind.
      Between 14 and 21 years of age, UG spent seven years off and on with Swami Sivananda in Rishikesh practicing yoga and meditation. He had various mystical visions and experiences there, but he questioned their validity as he thought that he could recognize them only on the basis of his prior knowledge he already had about them.
      In 1939, when UG was 21 years of age, he went and met Sri Ramana Maharshi and asked him, ‘This thing called moksha, can you give it to me?’ Ramana reply, ‘I can give it, but can you take it?’ struck him like a ‘thunderbolt’ and set him up on a relentless search for truth that ended at the age of 49 with a totally unforeseen result.
      After leaving the university, UG joined the Theosophical Society as a lecturer and toured the country giving talks on Theosophy. Even after his marriage to Kusuma Kumari in 1943, he continued to work with the Theosophical Society and gave lectures in European countries, until, in 1953, he realized that what he was doing was not something true to his real self and quit the post in disgust.
      After that, he met J. Krishnamurti, who was by then famous as an unconventional spiritual teacher. For two years, he met him now and again and got into fierce discussions on spiritual matters, but later on, he was to reject JK’s philosophy, calling it a ‘bogus chartered journey.’
      During this period, UG also underwent a life-altering, mystical experience, what he sometimes called a ‘death experience’. But he ‘brushed it all aside’ as of no importance and moved on, further probing and testing and questioning every experience until he came into his own.
      In 1955, UG went to America with his family to get medical treatment for his son’s polio condition. When his resources began to diminish, he took to lecturing for a fee. He gave talks on the major religions and philosophies of the world and soon came to be recognized as a fine teacher from India. But, as it happened before, at the end of the second year, he lost interest in lecturing and then the inevitable happened. His seventeen years of marriage came to an end. His wife returned to India with the children. And UG drifted from one thing to another. After his aimless wanderings in London and Paris, like a dry leaf blown here, there and everywhere, he landed in Geneva and at last found refuge in Valentine de Kerven’s chalet in Saanen. By then incredible experiences had started to happen to him and his body was ‘like rice chaff burning inside’. It was a prelude to his ‘clinical death’ on his forty-ninth birthday (in 1967) and the beginning of the most incredible bodily changes and experiences that would catapult him into a state that is difficult to understand within the framework of our hitherto known mystical or enlightenment traditions. For seven days, seven bewildering physical changes took place and he landed in what he calls the ‘Natural State’. It was a cellular revolution, a full-scale biological mutation.
      In 1972, UG gave his first public talk at the Indian Institute of World Culture, Bangalore. He never again gave any public talk. But he did not/could not stop people from meeting and talking to him.
      He responded to their queries and answered their questions in the way only he could. He usually stayed with friends or in small rented apartments, but never stayed in one place for more than six months. He gave no lectures or discourses. He had no organization, no office, no secretary, and no fixed address. Despite his endless repetition that he had ‘no message for mankind,’ ironically yet naturally thousands of people the world-over felt otherwise and flocked to see and listen to his ‘anti-teaching’.
      The first book, The Mystique of Enlightenment—The unrational ideas of a man called UG, put together by Rodney Arms, appeared in 1982. In 1986, he went public and gave his first TV interview, which was soon to be followed by several TV and radio interviews the world over. And UG made publishing history by not allowing copyright on any of his books saying, ‘My teaching, if that is the word you want to use, has no copyright. You are free to reproduce, distribute, interpret, misinterpret, distort, garble, do what you like, even claim authorship, without my consent or the permission of anybody.’
      In the last seven years during his stay in Bangalore, he rarely engaged in serious conversations; rather he started to do something else other than answer tiresome questions, for he found all questions (except in the technical area, which is something else) were variations of basically the same question revolving around the ideas of ‘being’ and ‘becoming’. There used to be long stretches of utter silence. It used to be embarrassing; also a tremendous relief from the burden of knowing. And then UG would start playing his enigmatic little ‘games’, or invite friends to sing, dance, or share jokes. And the room would explode with laughter: funny, silly, dark, and apocalyptic! At last freed from the tyranny of knowledge, beauty, goodness, truth, and God, we would all mock and laugh at everything, mock heroes and lovers, thinkers and politicians, scientists and thieves, kings and sages, including UG and ourselves!
      Who was this UG? What kind of person was he? He was the most enigmatic person you could ever meet – at once kind and cruel, most loving yet stern, constantly talking about money, seeming to ‘extract’ it from friends, yet most generous in giving; seemingly abusive and punishing, yet showering affection on the same person the next moment; utterly carefree, yet worrying about what might happen to the person in front of him; directing people to act in specific ways, yet instantly accepting of any outcome; demonstrating the most incisive logic, yet making utterly contradictory statements. For a man who complained that we are constantly preoccupied with something other than what is happening at the moment, he endlessly talked about himself and his past. One could never fathom UG’s true intentions behind his statements or actions.
      His answers to our questions came straight like arrows, unsettling our minds. He was well-known for striking down not only the edifices we have so carefully built in our own minds but the foundations of human thought as a whole. UG was truly enigmatic, subversive and revolutionary, and totally fearless.
      There was a unique energy with UG: in speech or in stillness it was constant and vibrant, and had a profound effect on those who were around him.
      And let this be told: when UG rejected the notion of soul or atman and declared that our search for permanence was the cause of our suffering, he sounded like the Buddha; when he blasted all spiritual discourses as ‘poppycock’ and thrashed the spiritual masters as ‘misguided fools’, we thought of the fiery and abusive words of the great 9th century mystic of China, Rinzai Gigen, who declared, ‘I have no dharma to give… There is no Buddha, no Dharma, no training and no realization…’ When he spoke of ‘affection’ as ‘thuds’ felt in the spot where the thymus gland is located, we related it to Sri Ramana’s declaration that the ‘true heart’ is located on the right side of the chest. Likewise we sometimes connected his radical statements to certain expressions or declarations in the Avadhuta Gita, Ashtavakra Gita, the Upanishads and Zen Koans, or compared them with the teachings of J. Krishnamurti, Nisargadatta Maharaj and even the post-modern ‘deconstructionists’. We could go on thus, making such connections and comparisons, but that did not help us to get a handle on the mystery that was UG!
      That mystery, that enigma, is no more. Once, a couple of years back, when Mahesh Bhatt had asked him, ‘UG, how would you like to be remembered?’ UG had said, ‘After I am dead and gone, nothing of me must remain inside of you or outside of you. I can certainly do a lot to see that no establishment or institution of any kind mushrooms around me whilst I am alive. But how do I stop all you guys from enshrining me in your brains?’
      - Asian Tribune -

    6. UG Krishnamurti is a totally differnt eprson Sir, he is not Jiddu Krishnamurti

    7. You're not so sleepy. You are continuing the process of awakening, as many of us...

    8. @Om Fetell Your making accusations with out substance? Would you elaborate please? What i see, he eradicates existing concept of thought process creates an interlude and opens the field of thought to new possibilities; not defining whats right but what isn't right. Are We Or Are We Not, is another book at another time. But for now, "I Think Therefore I Am"

    9. i haven't watched this compilation yet... and i typically like to read the descriptions and the comments before i indulge my (non-existing) time, (because to the disenfranchised girl in bangledesh who has never acknowledged a birthday, annual festivals, the lil' dude who has no arms for holdiing watches, or time for watching time because he slaves away by the revolution of the sun... to those folks, tocks don't have ticks and ticks are not bound to clocks...)
      sorry, i digress... i like the way you put that because, i'm almost certain that is exactly his point,..!!
      personally, i subscribe to the notion that there are no real questions and therefore, they are no real answers. the ideas of righteousneds, wrongs were developing in me at the rate of creating civilizations.
      there is no right or wrong. even when i perceive something to be a particular way for me, (right or wrong), i'm digging a hole in a whole. and that's not all together a bad thing, i don't think. i think it's more of a sad thing, because, my rights and wrongs change as i do. and anything not changing is dead.
      still, the whole of me goes beyond me, but starts from me, (before me even existed, i was here, in the making, but not ever complete, not starting or ending, just spinning on ends and the in betweens...)
      i'd like to think i am brilliant, i'd like for you all to think me wise. but, i am not. it just the fact. but, at same time, how can i not be...? brilliance...? even within my most dimly wit, there's a brilliance there.
      sad it becomes when i stop or start to look at myself for scrutiny or for self-inflated notions, because what i am thinking, i become. when i am living, i am life.

      hope that made sense.
      be well...

    10. with all that said, i am certain that i am doing too much thinking, and my search for liberation will be accessed on my skatebloard. that's right, skating, the freezone...! where i won't be reading comments of ridicule and disdain, i'm gonna hit the steepest hill in my hood on my sector 9, and..... just carve and cruise man....!!

      be good to each other, for [y]our own dang sake...
      peace and tofu grease...

    11. You just replyed yourself. Think very carefully now

  31. A fascinating man, very wise & humble too.

  32. Dear Friends,
    The great J Krishna jee was the enlightened one ,free from sorrow , mental agony and cycle of life & death . Once upon a time he was student of the lord Buddha . His teaching are basically the teaching of Buddha . He was born to show the path of ultimate freedom to people like us .

    Thanks & Regards,
    Vipul Tiwari

  33. In my experience, Krishnamurti's purpose was to bring silence to the mind. Once that occurred for me, I will from time to time go back and listen to him, but what he's saying has little meaning at all to me, which seemed strange at first. Then I realized that without dogma, doctrine, etc., there really is nothing to hold on to through time.

    He questioned, in order to re-form HOW we think, not WHAT we think, simply by asking fruitful questions.

    1. You basically just described Socrates. :)

  34. To many ppl thrive on drama! He is a very amazing inspirational man! His personal life is all his own not mine or anyone elses life to judge! I mean the man has passed and u still dwell on some affair crap! Wow no respect for the dead!

    1. He certainly had no respect for his best friend, to start and continue an affair with his wife, respect has to be earned. Some best friend he was.

  35. No dogma or ideology,no promise of enlightenment or salvation.Modern anarchistic thought that rejects the conventional intellectual processes and suggests that human fulfillment is realization of the self.Reminds me of Joeseph Campbell's advice for happiness in summa,"Follow your Bliss"

  36. In the 1920s in Ojai California he was possessed by an entity and suffered tremendously as a result. He referered to this overtaking as "the process" and the pain continued throughout his entire life. All the result of being brought up by theosophists, an occult group started by known satanist Helena Blavatsky, a lady with a big influence on the "other Loch Ness monster" Aleister Crowley. He spent the rest of his life trying to convince people that thought is obstructive, there is no God and Jesus is of no importance. He tricked brilliant but gullible physicist David Bohm with his nonsense and to top it off was sleeping around with his best and most loyal friend's wife.
    A shadowy man who only led people off track with his promise of an otherness beyond time and thought.
    Dig to the root of people's history and it will become clearer what they are all about.

    1. "in Ojai California he was possessed by an entity" Upon what evidence do you make such a claim? Why are you defaming someone who's message is so pure? God has nothing to do with this and if your problem is with his personal beliefs alone, you have already lost the most precious thing in life: honesty with yourself. There is no way you listened to even 30 minutes of this, let alone all 9 hours. I dare you to watch the scene with him and the children and then turn around and see if you're callous enough to still talk smack about such a caring man. I wish you the worst.

    2. Your last phrase does not reflect what you find so fantastic in this man.

    3. [quote]"in Ojai California he was possessed by an entity" Upon what evidence do you make such a claim?[/quote] Probably on the evidence of K's own descriptions.

    4. I'm pretty sure he denounced theosophism,gave all the donations back and told thousands of followers that he was not the one promised (which they previously believed he was). Does not sound like an evil person out to ensnare people to be.

    5. So now you found out that he may have slept around you can't learn from his teachings. Thats to bad.

    6. I just knew that a Jesus freak will make s*upid comment like that.

      The problems of the world is created by...brainwashed, controlled thinking, and the biggest culprit is the Christianity. You can give them all the logic in the world, but will be met with ignorance.

      Want to know how Christianity spreads its word? Through fear.

      As in, "If you don't believe in our god, you will go to hell!" method.

      I've seen it firsthand after our country was flattened to nothing by the war that was "created" by so-called the "Superpowers" for their own agendas. People were starving and still recovering from fear and deaths of the war, when the christian missionaries came. They held the Bible in one hand and the painting of their imagined "hell" in the other, and told us little kids, "If you don't believe in the Bible, you will go to Hell!, you don't want to go to hell, do you?"

      Well the fear tactic worked. Now the 80% of my country are christians. But guess what? I saw the gradual decline of the morals with the incline of the christianity.

      This has happened all over the world. First, they take your land for resources or for its strategic location. Second, they kill off anyone who oppose them (mostly innocent and unarmed, and calling them "Rebels" "Reds" ).And thirdly, and the most disgusting of all, they take away your spirituality and identity by forcing their Christianity on people.

      Like I said, this has happened all over the world ( N. American Indians, S. American Indians, Philippines, S. Korea, the continent of Africa,.....) and will happen again.

      So there you go Christians. I'm sure your god will pat you on the back for bringing so much suffering to this world. Have anyone of you ever wondered if your god is actually the Devil? You know..., if Devil wanted to control the world, then what better way than to disguise himself into.....

  37. I was young when I first read "Think On These Things" (I think that's what it was titled) and his crystalline clarity on simple things was astounding. Subsequently I heard him speak in San Diego in the early 70s. Whatever else can be said of this totally original thinker, he changed himself and thus changed the whole world--- a point which he made repeatedly about the importance of every conscious being's life journey.
    It is notable that he appears very frail in this series and seems to exhibit a few common effects of aging.

  38. Whatever be the philosophical worth of his all too forgetable ramblings, as a human being he was no role model for humanity.

    For starter, he showed unacceptable streaks of jealousy and was having an affair with his best friend's wife. All well documented.

    1. The life work of a great person often exceeds the measure of the individual man. It is common knowledge that MLK had affairs. So what? Does this invalidate "the better angels" of his nature? I have a weakness for White Castle cheeseburgers and I've been cross with my children...often. Does this mean my work on "lingustics as prior to memory and cognition" is diminished by that?

    2. Cheating on your spouce is a fairly big deal. I wouldn't put being cross with your kids and a weakness of uberfattening cheeseburgers on par with adultary. Sorry. One point for Vanraj.

      After reading all the comments, I think I'll pass on this one!

    3. @C_and_N~
      Of course. I don't disagree with your measure of infidelity as a hurtful offense in interpersonal relations. What if I cheated on my wife? Would all my life's other work be discredited because I committed adultery? Or does the matter properly concern just me and my wife? Why should anyone else butt in with judgments like you are doing? See what I'm saying? Are you what my grandmother called a "buttinski"?
      I have found that cheating is not necessarily the kind of all pervading moral failure that infects a person's whole character. What I mean to say is a man could have a sexual indiscretion and still be a moral man in other things--- but a person who chronically steals or kills becomes desensitized with a calloused disregard for life itself.

    4. Well said! If we measured all people by their shortcomings ONLY , there are no worthy people on earth.

      This man is a fantastic human being and a thoroughly original thinker. He rejected the theosophical society early in his life, where he was treated as a demigod and was assured a life of comfort for life. He spent the rest of his life talking to people in inspiring them to follow their own path. Of course in a typical fashion, most who heard him wanted to worship him despite his forewarnings.

      Of course those who have sworn loyalty to organized religion are going to have a problem with him, as he despised such institutions.

    5. You will have to admit that someone teaching about the origin of misery in the world has to be viewed in the light of the misery he caused to his fellow human beings - especially when they trusted him in his morality. Although that doesn't nullify his teachings, it does damage to his credibility. If someone preaches an anarchical world view which relies on people acting responsible and considerate towards each other you would have to expect the person to act according to his own philosophy in private otherwise how can you belief that everybody will at some point?

    6. A man's reach should exceed his grasp or what's a Heaven for?

    7. Great systems of ideas are always about 'the plan, not the man'. This confusion probably derives from Christianity's fusing of both perfect goodness with a perfect man. No one--- not MLK, not Gandhi, and not J.Krishnamurti, ever said "Follow me". They said..."Here. Think about this..."
      Hence, it is really irrational to argue..."Look. This guy wasn't perfect. So how can his ideas about a moral life be any good?"

    8. True

    9. "unacceptable streaks of jealousy"? Unacceptable by whose standards? He was a man like everyone else. As far as the affair, I doubt you know the complex details of the inter-personal relationships of these three people. By taking 4 seconds to read Wikipedia you could have learned that the marriage had all but dissolved before the affair started and that they all lived on a compound together so i doubt there was much sneaking around. This man was not trying to be your messiah. He was offered that role and rejected it. He rejected the very concept.

      From Wikipedia:

      The new message

      Krishnamurti would often refer to the totality of his work as "the" teachings and not as "my" teachings.[91] His concern was always about "the teachings"; the teacher had no importance, and all authority, especially psychological authority, was denounced:

      All authority of any kind, especially in the field of thought and understanding, is the most destructive, evil thing. Leaders destroy the followers and followers destroy the leaders. You have to be your own teacher and your own disciple. You have to question everything that man has accepted as valuable, as necessary.[92]

      This includes inward authority:

      Having realized that we can depend on no outside authority ... there is the immensely greater difficulty of rejecting our own inward authority, the authority of our own particular little experiences and accumulated opinions, knowledge, ideas and ideals.[93]

      However such pronouncements were not endorsements of social or personal disorder; on the contrary, the total freedom he advocated would in his view result in complete order:

      Order is necessary, complete, absolute, inward order and that is not possible if there is no virtue, and virtue is the natural outcome of freedom. But freedom is not doing what you want to do nor is it revolting against the established order, adopting a laissez faire attitude to life or becoming a hippy. Freedom comes into being only when we understand, not intellectually but actually, our every day life, our activity, our way of thought, the fact of our brutality, our callousness and indifference; it is to be actually in contact with our colossal selfishness.[94]

      He furthermore declared that such understanding on the part of individuals, if genuine, should produce an impact on society as a whole by default:

      That is the only way to judge: in what way are you freer, greater, more dangerous to every Society which is based on the false and the unessential? ... Those who really desire to understand, ... will be a danger to everything that is unessential, to unrealities, to shadows.

      I apologize to my self for taking time to feed my own ego by responding to a comment posted on the internet and to anyone else whose ego i sucked into reading it. Namaste.

    10. another devot-ee

    11. Very true. I wonder when I read some of these comments if people have read anything about this man, as you say it`s well documented.

  39. To criticize K is to be a fool...this being has been compared to Siddhartha Gautama and other Buddhas....if your mind is tempted to critique his "way of being" then it is unevolved and unaware. K's teachings take focus and contemplation and most of all integration.

    1. word up! When u read and understand what K really said, the beauty ,depth and simplicity, thats all, even though i dont really believe he had this close affair with this woman its unimportant!

  40. He spoke for more than 40 years in order to help humanity but unfortunately no one could get any help from him because he was too intellectual, beyond the capacity of any body.

    1. I have gained enormously from his teachings. He has helped me more than any other philosopher. I read him when I was in my early twenty's and gained something but his clarity of mind couldn't be captured by my confused young mind. Thirty years later with a more mature mentality I can understand him a lot more. He has contributed more than anyone to the happiness I now enjoy.

    2. Quite so. I was young too when I first encountered him in San Diego in the early 70s. Whatever else can be said of this totally original thinker, he changed himself and this effected the whole world.

  41. Theory or philosophy, conflict or war. Yet still science can not fully understand the human mind. Whatever, there does need to be a radical change in mankind

  42. hehehe love the way he uses the kids , if kids figure it out , it is well explained

  43. Where are the Alan Watts videos?...You would be doing your site a world of good, rest assured.

    1. Yes good thinking @KEVIN... Alan Watts is next.

  44. If videos by Indian gurus is a trend here I fear that there will be nothing but. Having been to India I can attest that there are at least 10,000 gurus roaming the countryside. I prefer science myself.

    1. @Bob C. Poitras

      The "trend" here is "almost anything", concerning... humanity.

      There are 240 documentaries on science. That is the leading category.

    2. and so did Krishnamurti.

      You misunderstand him if you consider him a guru. He said get rid of all authority in your life. He ridiculed gurus.

    3. You prefer science? then you came to the right site, a lot of us have a lot of comments on the great science docs that TDF offers.

    4. Krishnamurti was teaching the science of the is pure careful not to confuse the religion of science with pure science...sounds like you belong to the Science Church

    5. Hmmm...I didn't think science was a matter of preference. That's like saying I prefer to breath. Science is an empirical endeavor that explains our physical world better than anything out there. Science, however, is not a replacement for philosophy and/or spirituality. It is those who force science into a philosophical/spiritual substitute who do science the most disservice, not to mention themselves.

  45. This guy is one my favorites

  46. Awesome Vlatko, been waiting for this for a while...going to spend next weekend with a friend working through all this :)

    I'm pretty sure that this will spawn great revelations within me that i have not considered before

  47. His talk with the kids ended up annoying me...listen listen listen...and then he tells them not to listen to society.
    The man has done a lot of good, like most of us all. In his case he got the opportunity to do it in front of a microphone!
    Reading him has been a better option for me.

    1. Society is corrupt. Do you want to listen to the society instead to your heart.

    2. Do you question this or criticize what he means by listening or do you find out merely through the words?..never mind K for this moment. What is listening? generally a parent tells you to listen when they have something in mind that they want you to do. Is that what society intends? Is that what the speaker is saying? What is listening?

    3. He said listen listen listen because people are bad at it. Being annoyed is a sign of not listening.