Complete Security

What did Krishnamurti mean when he said the brain must have complete security? I’ve been puzzling over this for some time, and I posed the question to someone at KFA (after hearing K say it at a small gathering in Malibu), but their answer didn’t quell my curiosity.

So I asked chat GPT:


What did Krishnamurti mean when he said, “The brain must have complete security?”


When Jiddu Krishnamurti talked about the brain needing complete security, he was referring to the psychological state of the mind rather than physical safety or protection. Krishnamurti, a renowned philosopher and spiritual teacher, often emphasized the importance of psychological security for the healthy functioning of the mind.

For Krishnamurti, psychological security involves a state of inner stability, freedom from fear, anxiety, and the need for validation or certainty. He suggested that when the brain is free from these psychological burdens, it can operate optimally, observe reality without distortion, and engage in genuine learning and exploration.

In essence, Krishnamurti advocated for a mind that is not constantly seeking security through attachments, beliefs, or ideologies but is instead open, aware, and free from the constraints of conditioning and fear. This state of complete security allows for true understanding, creativity, and intelligence to unfold.

My understanding is that the kind of security the brain needs for optimal performance is the real kind that arises from being free of psychological conditioning rather than the fake kind that arises from wishful thinking. ?

One thing about this that K said which has stuck in my mind is that there is complete security in nothingness.

It sounds a bit extreme, but I think once one has seen for oneself that there is no real or lasting security in our thoughts, in our feelings, in our attachments and beliefs, or in our physical body, or our physical possessions, then where would one expect to find security?

If it is possible to discover a state of nothingness, then security may well exist in such a state.

Perhaps K was talking about the same state only using different words, but he also said that there is security in intelligence, and also when there is love.

So love, Intelligence, and nothingness: these, it seems to me, are our best bets for where to find authentic, meaningful security.

Be NIL: nothing intelligent love.

It seems to me that the one who does not seek, does not expect, does not pretend to be, may be the one closer to being secure in nothingness without knowing it.