← Back to Kinfonet

Is Krishnamurti unique?

What I think our friend is saying, though, is that even if K were the Buddha of our time (not her words, but mine), that would not grant him a monopoly on the expression of truth. Others might be able to express it differently and it might still mean the same. By this she also means to warn against turning K’s impressive teaching into the exclusive doctrine of a particular sect. Implied in this is the sense that no matter how deep K may have gone, at certain levels he is saying very much the same thing that others have said. When it comes to inquiring into the human condition, K certainly touches on many things that others have also investigated and his insights are not unique, for others have also had them, no matter how differently expressed. The depth and range of K’s understanding, however, is so total and complete that it is hard to find anything resembling it anywhere. So, while there is a great deal of ground that has been covered by many others, there is quite a different dimension to K because of the all-encompassing nature of his insight. That is for me the difference. 


This is a companion discussion topic for the original entry at https://kinfonet.org/articles/is-krishnamurti-unique

Thank you for interesting observations.

And of course one can embrace everything from Shakespeare to Confucius and discover profundity. K did not own truth. K was, as he claimed, a passer-by who pointed something out. And one can only go there first-hand and open-minded to discover the truth of it - or not.

K was being totally honest when he discouraged followers. To follow is to NOT discover first-hand and with an open mind, but to turn K into an authority and hand over all one’s own responsibility to him. To make the teaching a doctrine - a dogma - is to kill it. It lives only when it is lived.

1 Like

Yes approach it in our own life and follow where it leads. Discuss with others who are interested and maybe see the ‘traps’ you have fallen into.

No one else can help you with this. You have to see for yourself what thought is. And that can’t be done by evaluating thought, judging thought, analyzing thought. See thought as it arises without any reaction to it. Reaction is thought, it is the past, it is our conditioning our tradition. Do you see that?