Knowing how to read Krishnamurti is an art

Reading krishmamurti is not merely reading English . K was able to speak many languages but he chose English so that people like me would understand. English is not important because it is merely an instrument…

No, please teach us.

J. Krishnamurti Online

There is no teacher to teach you, no saviour to save you. There is only learning. You have to do everything yourself, and that demands tremendous energy. This energy is dissipated, lost, degraded when there is the teacher and the taught.

From Public Talk 1, Saanen, 12 July 1964

Since Krishnamurti said there is only learning and no teacher, how did he feel about people referring to his talks and dialogs as “the teaching”?

K himself has referred to his work as ‘the teaching’.
And he even referred to himself as ‘the world teacher’ on a few occasions.

1 Like

Yes, the teachings taught us how to observe ourselves in relationship and in relationship with nature. The teachings also taught us not to condemn ourselves and others if we are to understand. But some of us are so self-amazed that think we are capable of anything and have no need for the teachings! That surely is a wishful idea. Teaching and learning in fact go hand in hand.

Shankar quotes Krishnamurti as saying, “There is no teaching to teach you”, so can you find where K "referred to his work as ‘the teaching’?

According to Shankar’s quote, K said, “There is no teacher to teach you…There is only learning.” Do teaching and learning always go “hand in hand”? Do you believe you can’t learn without the help of a teacher?

Believe what ever you want. K was the world teacher .

He was declared The World Teacher by the Theosophists, and renounced the title when he dissolved The Order of the Star.

I am afraid that you are seeking a consistent thinker to obey and follow. K is not a consistent thinker, plus he was against us quoting him.

When and where did he say “he was against us quoting him”?

He said don’t quote me,it is not yours.

Until ‘it’ is yours, then use any words you like.

I was just recounting to someone an experience I just had. It was nearing time to do some physical excercise and I thought ‘I really don’t want to do it’. I thought I’ll just skip it for today and do it tomorrow. I recalled a story by K saying he was tired from all the talking he had done and didn’t want anything to do with yoga… then he realized that it wasn’t the body saying this but thought. I realized this was the same case here and had a good workout. So now this knowledge is mine, I don’t have to cite K if I were to pass it on to another. I am just say maybe it’s not the body that’s lazy but thought.

As I have repeated and can repeat it again without boredom, I have spent more time and given more talks in India than anywhere else. I am not concerned with the results, what effect the Teachings have in India, how deep the roots have penetrated, but I think one has the right to ask and should ask, as I am asking, why there is not in India after all these years one person totally and completely involved in these Teachings, living them and dedicated entirely to them. I am not in any way blaming any of you, but if I may, I would urge you to give your most serious attention to this.

The above K quote from Pupul Jayakar’s ‘Krishnamurti a biography’ , is just one such instance. I remember many such references in May Zimbalist’s memoirs of K too.



Thanks for pointing this out.

That is the whole point: “living them”…
In Pupul’s book, Fire in the Mind, K said how those Buddhists - to their faces !! - were only “theorizing” about what he was saying (the Teachings), ergo not “living them”.

This issue has devolved globally (due to the internet’s social media impact) into unfettered so-called “free speech” from those who cannot/are unable to be free, into all sorts of incredible behaviours: stranger attacks (even beginning to be seen here in Victoria, where a homeless woman thwacked the back of the head of an Asian child, geez! - as discussed with someone here), up to the underground “discord” sites which give a false sense of liberty and license to the most violent of fantasies. For those who do not live freedom, theorizing is always the most destructive of behaviours. Theorizing about the Teachings is nothing less than accumulating psychological knowledge about the human condition and mind. It is a notable fact that theorizing is - from what can be seen, no matter where it is found - to be something that is actively encouraged and supported as a group - the group mind. Unwittingly, the group always functions - in the most unaware of ways - its basic dysfunctional need to rely and depend on each other. It fosters psychological dependence. In the end, it destroys within those who theorize the real possibility of actually living the Teachings. Inquiry is always that which actually experiments with the Teachings to see whether what K talked about is true or false. And such experimentation is something which must be done alone.

While skepticism is crucial, as K said, it must be held with a “leash”, and at times must be put aside. (K used the metaphor of a dog on a leash, but at times putting the leash aside and letting the dog run free.) In other words, doubt is not something to be applied indiscriminately. Skepticism is inherently judicious.


I posted that quote just for showing that K did refer to his body of work as’the teachings’ .
Just a few observations regarding what you wrote.

These fundamental rights ( like free speech, right to protest, individual liberties, constitutions etc ) are purely Western ideas whose sole basis is thought and have no natural genesis. No wonder violence and anarchy are having a free play in the world because ultimately thought divides.

Agree that theorising leads nowhere. Yes most discussions I find repetitive, and same things are discussed in different threads using different language. I hear even real world face to face dialogue groups turn messy after a while.
Perhaps that is to be expected because individualism has not yet dissolved and the differences play out in an open dialogue.

I myself am no great fan of dialoguing except when I can genuinely contribute. I think it is important one actually starts observing oneself because then only K can be used as a reference book( or a pointer) to verify ( if I may use that word) our observations.

Totally agree. Some amount of scepticism is healthy. Too much scepticism is like throwing the baby along with bath water and leads to intellectuallism.

Do we mean Scepticism, as in : not believing in stuff for no good reason.

Under this definition, “too much scepticism” is meaningless.
What do we actually mean? Maybe that people are coming to the “wrong” conclusions?
Or holding on to personal dogma despite demonstrations to the contrary?

Scepticism as in neither believing nor not believing.