← Back to Kinfonet

I am struggling living Krishnamurtis Teachings

I have been reading and listening to Krishnamurti for over 30 years now I believe and I still have not gotten very far, no transformation, no radical change.

I am struggling with this now, wondering what I am doing wrong. I have read several of his biographies, read most if not all of his dialogues with Dr David Bohm, read or watched many of his dialogues with others, read over 15-20 Krishnamurti books, etc.

Recently, i rededicated my efforts and have been reading and or watching some of his videos almost every day now, and I can see the truth in much of what he says, and yet I am still the same.

I would like to hear from others what they think, any hints, suggestions, advice, thoughts, anything they can share to help me live Krishnamurtis teachings.

After a while reading K excessively can prove detrimental. More important is to start observing yourself. And that’s where the real journey starts.

I too have read some K including some of his biographies. Now I just see some K quotes here and there, that’s all.

I think the most important/only aspect of his teaching is passive selfawareness. And it is important to find out what that means. Once that is understood it gets so much easier to travel (metaphorically).


Yes, thanks Drax, good start, good hint. I agree one can read or watch Krishnamurti too much. But honestly in my case, that is not the case. I even have gone as far to stop reading/watching him for a few years. I took a break from him for that time, and was trying to see for myself, to observe myself. I again agree that is the real journey, but not that easy.

I also agree that passive selfawareness is a very important part of his teaching. I am not so good at this part and have to continue to allow that to happen.

I don’t think you ALLOW awareness to happen. If you are in the moment you are already aware.

This stuff is very difficult to discuss, talk about, due to the clumsy use of language, words. When I typed that sentence out, I knew that word “allow” or “continue” might cause some problems possibly, but I didnt know what else to say, to use. But we are saying the same thing.

Back to hints, regarding how to live Krishnamurtis teachings.

The first helpful hint I receieved is to possibly reduce reading him, not to read him too excessively. And also to start observing myself more, that is where the real work is, not in reading Krishnamurti.

For me at this moment it’s not complicated. ‘Transformation’ is a quiet mind. Not quiet when there is something to be solved, to be planned or worked out etc. Quiet when you are sitting alone, walking. Someone came along and said follow these thoughts that come when you are sitting walking , listen to them, each one and ask why has that thought arisen…that that is the way to a quiet mind. What more ‘need’ is there for that ‘someone’?

Screenshot 2021-10-08 091823


Great K quote Drax, that sums up a lot, there is a lot in there.

Dan, is this theory for you, or are you actually asking why you have this or that thought and have come to the quiet mind? Or is this just a hint you are suggesting as to how to live Krishnamurtis teachings? For me, thoughts run wild and I do not know why I have thought them, or at least most of them. Some here and there I know why I have, especially the ones about fear or worry about the future.

We can’t help but want things we don’t have. It is the default mode of human existence.

Psychologically (or spiritually if you prefer) we yearn for fulfillment and meaning - which unlike food and shelter deficiencies can never be satisfied, through the teachings or anything else. Life is essentially suffering as Schopenhauer once wrote, a perpetual state of unrest, of seeking. Acknowledging this, you would think an intelligent person would be in agreement with Krishnamurti that the sensible recourse is to willingly walk through the doors of death (psychologically) - to use thought only when necessary. However, the will to survive is also a default mode. That being the stronger force, we remain at war within ourselves even in times of relative calm externally.

K once asked, “Why do you accept conflict as a way of life?” Seems to me that it is because we have no choice in the matter. We are mechanical beings.

Emile, if I am understanding you correctly, you are suggesting we should just live in conflict, mechanicalness, that is the default of human existence, to just accept it? Is that how you live your life or are you trying to live a totally different kind of life?

Yes, minus the “just”.

Seeing this topic references the teachings, here is K’s take on ‘trying’ anything, including how to live a totally different life:

“Real change is no change”.

1 Like

I am also wondering if there is anybody on here who also has tried to apply Krishnamurtis teachings alongside Buddhist teachings? Do you think they are complementary, helpful to each other? Or do you feel they are not compatible? That one has to either be a Buddhist and follow that traditional path or one has to just be a Krishnamurti-ite? Are they any helpful hints from Buddhism that you apply to Krishnamurtis teachings?

p.s. - I was browsing the forum and found a post by a poster named ‘Conditioned’ if anyone knows her and is in contact, can you please tell her I would love to talk to her, for I saw she was a Buddhist Nun and did several Vipassana Retreats. I would love to hear her experiences combining Buddhist teachings with Krishnamurti teachings.

I would put it this way. If you have a certain understanding of looking/watching yourself nothing else is required.
Only when we are confused do we start searching for alternatives, methods and usually we remain as confused at the end of the search because there is no clarity from methods whether Buddhist or otherwise.
A confused mind cannot get clarity when the root of the confusion is not addressed.


Greetings from far away. “I” am not a Buddhist - having never studied Buddhism per se. I was struck in my late teens, by a phrase in an encyclopedia about the Buddha, “right action”. And, since there was no explanation in a rather long text about “how to” do “right action”, I usually - in my life, during times when I had to make an important decision - well, I wondered whether or not what I would do would be “right action”. Some years ago, while reading K, K dialoguing with a Dr. Rahula, who mentioned he was working on a book, which became: “What the Buddha Taught”, which I downloaded and well, I read parts of the the abbreviated “short” version. It is available free of charge online, btw. Again, I checked what the Buddha had said re: “right action”, and interestingly enough, there was no discussion about “how to” do “right action”. I understood then, well, yeah, there could never be a “how to”, because that would defeat the purpose, right? From what I understood, K had the greatest respect for the Buddha, as do I. All the “right action”, “right speech”, etc. etc. - from what one has understood - leads to building a foundation of goodness, without which it is impossible to get K, to change. You see, goodness first, then wisdom. :slightly_smiling_face:

Edit: (I edited by putting get into quotes and bolding it, because people seem to think that one must get K; I never did that, I just did K… testing all the way…)

During my 20s and part of my 30s, I did volunteer work - an hour or two every week or two. Mainly, one was having fun, making friends, and doing things I thought were worthwhile. I never really thought about it at the time; but looking back, one has understood, that all of that added up; and, without realizing it, all of that had built a foundation of goodness, which made getting K possible. None of that volunteering was about making “me” feel better. That would not be true volunteering. During all that time, there was work, studies, relationships, friendships, family, social and cultural life, travel, etc. etc. I will add that all of the volunteering which I did was not something that could be called “cheap labour”. In other words, none of it was something that anyone could or would get any financial remuneration from.

All of that volunteering was about affecting the conscience of society regarding: racism, sexism, homophobia, militarism, nationalism, etc. etc. - the “isms” of the world…

So, to summarize, Yes, indeed there was a link for me between what the Buddha had said and K… - “right action”. I will add that Buddhism per se as it is practised today holds absolutely no interest for me - just another sexist organized religion that has enslaved millions throughout the world in a network of belief and thought.

Looking, listening, it is all changing isn’t it? Maybe changing is the wrong word? It’s in a living movement; the wind, sunlight, sounds, sensations, animals, people, cars, all of it. What is there that is actually static? We may say the room, furniture, objects, are materially static, but it is a limited perception of the world. We only see the walls, but right now, there is an outside, sky, distant environment, the whole planet. We don’t see past our own perception. The wider environment, that we can’t see, have we shut it out, and have a belief system, occupied with the concerns of time and place, safety and security, profit, success, all of that? Maybe you have read all of this before, so you will not see the urgency, the immediacy? Maybe like many who come here, this will be just another persons comments to ridicule.

It’s a good question. And as I reply I will listen to the thoughts that arise. As I see it the “why” mentioned is not the seeking of an answer but to put thought itself in question. In other words for thought to be aware of itself rather than its normal unaware, mechanical operation. To move with the thinking with an awareness, a question of ‘why’ it is doing what it doing. K described this again ,as I see it , as an “art”, the art of listening. He can’t do this for you or me.

The’quiet mind’ then, isn’t up ahead waiting for us to ‘find it’, or ‘get to it’; it is perhaps here now in the awareness that the mind is not quiet.

This is thought searching, isn’t it? Thought’s attempt to fortify itself by accumulating the ideas of others. It’s this that has to be observed, listened to. Thought has taken its ability to solve problems into the psychological realm where its very presence, movement, “methods “ is the confusion itself that it is attempting to overcome.


I realize that some good and simple responses have been given here. I’m still going to add my 2 cents (or 1000 cents), hoping it does not add confusion to the issue.

Here is a simple arithmetic problem I found on the internet (bear with me):

Tell whether the sequence is arithmetic or not. Explain why or why not.
Sequence A : - 1, - 3, - 5, - 7, …
Sequence B: -3, 0, 4, 7, …

Sequence A is an arithmetic sequence since every pair of consecutive terms has a common difference of -2. That is d = -2.

On the other hand, sequence B is NOT an arithmetic sequence. There’s no common difference among the pairs of consecutive terms in the sequence (that is, there is no sequence to d; d is not predictable - d=+3, d=+4, d=+3).

How does the mind/brain approach a math problem, a logistical or a technical problem? Even in those fields, the mind needs to be attentive in order to receive and understand the problem. In those fields, once the problem/question is understood, it can be solved using effort, knowledge, time, experience, method, formula, imagery, etc.

But if the problem being perceived or received by the mind is in the psychological field of relationship, can the mind solve the problem using the same approach of effort, knowledge, time, experience, method, formula, imagery, and so on? Hasn’t this been our one-size-fits-all approach as we have searched for an answer to our problems of right action in relationship for thousands of years? CAN the problem of fear — anger, deceit, selfishness, jealousy, greed, arrogance, depression, anxiety, pretense, and so on — be ended by means of effort, knowledge, time, formula, etc.? CAN the fundamental questions which fuel our discontent — questions of meaning, confusion, brutality and injustices, and so on — can these questions be ended through struggle, knowledge, experience and method?

Consciously or unconsciously, is it that we still think or hope that maybe the next book, the next talk or the next teacher will be able to reveal or convey “the answer” to me through a new formulation of words? Are we still relying on thought to unlock the answer, to provide an insight? Is it that we are afraid to try a totally new approach, an approach devoid of effort and thought?

Aren’t the limitations of the mind, “the self-enclosing activities of the mind” (as quoted by nobody and Emile at post #27 in the “Freedom” thread; for convenience, the full quote follows) clear? As I see it, they are — not only to me but to anyone who has “thought on these things”. Then why does my search not end? Is it that the only way I KNOW how to search is through thought and effort, even though I see that thought and effort cannot solve fear and discontent?

In the immediate moment that the limitations of the mind are understood, effort is ended. It is also observed and understood that the reactions and movements of conditioning can still surface — and there is nothing for “me” to do about it. This “doing nothing” is the only thing I have to do, as I understand it.

Where the limitations of the mind are understood, any movements of conditioning which still occur are viewed not from the perspective of self but out of understanding. What ends is the STRUGGLE to overcome suffering through thought, as I see it. One can still falter, one can still get caught up in the illusion of self, but this does not obscure the understanding of the psychological processes. Therefore, one makes no effort to correct it or to end it through thought. One does not judge and condemn it.

Here is the K quote mentioned above:
“To go beyond the self-enclosing activities of the mind, you must understand them; and to understand them is to be aware of action in relationship, relationship to things, to people, and to ideas. In that relationship, which is the mirror, we begin to see ourselves, without any justification or condemnation; and from that wider and deeper knowledge of the ways of our own mind, it is possible to proceed further; then it is possible for the mind to be quiet, to receive that which is real.”

So K (and others) say that understanding the limitations of the mind is not enough to end suffering, it is not enough “to receive that which is real”. Now, personally, I don’t know about receiving that which is real. But understanding the limitations of the mind also means understanding that one cannot go beyond the limitations of the mind by means of the limitations. Thereore, those endless, repetitive, useless, exhausting efforts are finished with. This particular mind/brain may never “receive that which is real”. So be it. But it is not “nothing” for psychological effort and struggle to be ended. There is something totally new in that. And much to learn.


Seems to me you have a strong desire to change… Have you observed why do you want to change? Why do you have that desire? Is it, if may I suggest, a way of avoiding some sorrow? If so, why not remain with it? Ultimately one strong point on JK teaching is go remain with sorrow with no interference at all.