The K factor

In the dialogue 5 from the series of dialogues that K and DB held at BP-1975, they make clear that awareness and attention are beyond thought which is only a part of what is going in the brain-mind yet, they both still are in the psychological-mind realm so, no need to make something extraordinary out of them. Some people think that this is enlightenment already because where there is attention there is not self or ego, some others can´t understand why having got out of the stream of thought they suddenly find themselves back in that stream after a brief period of “relief”. Since we still are in the psychological realm and thought still can interfere, there is the possibility for these two “results” to come about. But if we can´t nor even be attentive, how are we supposed to listen to the truth , the K factor, which is what makes thought to become consciously aware of itself, of its neurotic and nonsensical behavior or functioning, the only way for it to stop allowing truth to operate on its own? From there on, according to K, we have to do nothing. Hence, K insistence on putting our house in order first, I guess.

Apparently, attention without intention or direction, beyond thought and without self or center, is as far as we can go by ourselves, however, this is also what enables us to listen to the truth coming from an external agent, the K factor, that hasn´t to be mistaken with the “guru”. A guru usually will claim that he or she knows and that he will tell us. According to K, truth can´t be known and doesn´t belong to anybody. What makes out of a body an instrument of truth? To be continue … I think this is what they discuss in dialogue 6 and following of this mystery series.

P.S:: Apologies for my English.


And here it is (dialogue 7), the bombshell:

DB: But it is your feeling that whatever happened, that there was behind it some sort of –for want of a better word- destiny or order which was aimed at some transformation of man?

K: Probably.



Dialogue 8 is brilliant. I had never heard before J. Krishnamurti talking so openly, clearly and explicitly on what is all this K´s stuff about as he does in this series of dialogues but I don´t feel this site to be the most appropriate place to discuss it. Thanks for letting us know and also for the transcriptions, anyway.

1 Like

I am sorry to say but you sound very confused about k. It is really your problem not others so you have to solve it yourself.

Sorry to say but I´m only writing down what K says in these dialogues.

Dialogue 12 and last:

K: You have read, I have worked at it, and so on and on, son on. To come to this we have to live right – you follow?

You follow, @Examiner? Are you living right or you are just chattering? Blah, blah, blah…

Ask the above from yourself because nobody else knows what you talk about by blah blah blah.
We speak English in here.

Can you refer to the exact place whrere K was speaking of the K-factor?

I have no problem with you using your own words to describe what you understood but then put those words in the mouth of the right person.

1 Like

Question is where he was not, especially in these dialogues so, I´d suggest you to listen to them once again.

Which was, according to J.Krishnamurti, the aim, purpose, subject … of J.Krishnamurti´s talks, dialogues, conversations and life, from his speech ending with the theosophical organization till his death? The transformation of mankind. Right?

Which is, according to J. Krishnamurti, the factor, element, ingredient or whatever you want to call it, necessary for this transformation to take place? A human being born with a brain that is not only not conditioned but also immune to conditioning or not subject to be conditioned. A brain not only “uncorrupted” but also “incorruptible”. Right?

Who is, according to J.Krishnamurti, this human being? J. Krishnamurti himself. Right?

How does J. Krishnamurti refers to himself? As “K”. Right?

It´s not me who is clearing the equation, so to speak, J. Krishnamurti did it in these dialogues. I only wrote down some notes. I have not shared my opinion about it nor have I enquired into it or posed any question on the issue either.

1 Like

So you naming his message ‘k factor’ is only repeating what he said and or did? But still naming is not equal to understanding and certainly not his words but yours, so say so !

By the way the message was not his - he owned nothing - but came through him.

In my view a fundamental and delicate distinction!

You see, this is the all-pervasive problem. What you say is only your own understanding, assumption and conclusion after reading the title of this post, that I´m naming his message. Obviously, I´m not. I´m only focusing attention on this specific and concrete subject because I think that is of general interest for K´s readers and listeners since it is the first time that we can hear about it from J. Krishnamurti himself, first hand. Farewell, speculations. Reason why I named it “K factor”, I´ve explained already. If you don´t get it, what can I do?

His message? If you want to know, and now yes, this is my understanding, always according to J.Krishnamurti: this is what happened and this is what it happened for , if you consider that there is some truth in it, your collaboration is required: live right and be watchful, attentive so that you can listen to this truth and allow it to operate on you.

Problem is that poor human being seems to be unable of living righteously, of being attentive, of being alone hence, all the complications popping up and all the blah, blah, blah leading nowhere. Not to mention the implicit expectation, underlying all arguments and discussions, that, at some point, we´ll get the great insight that will make the miracle of the transformation through them. That´s not going to happen, ever. Once this has been understood, words (readings, opinions, discussions and all the rest, are only to be discarded. Yet, all of you hold on to them as if the words were the thing. According to J.K, they are not and I fully agree with this.

As said before, this is what I understand, not what I think about it.

What is the blah (including the K/Bohm blah) for? What is the point of the blah? Is it just to get us to understand the problem of blah? To bring about the awareness of our relationship to blah?

I wouldn´t include the K/B blah because hadn´t it be because of their blah, would we be blah, blah, blah?
K had something to say that, according to him, hadn´t been said before and B helped him to find the accurate words and way to express and communicate it, preventing the listeners from mistaking it with what religions and tradition in general say so, I´d say that´s the point of their blah.
What´s the point of our blah? Keeping in mind that these two guys spent years, decades, to make clear what K meant by consciousness, awareness, observation, watchfulness, rightfulness or living without conflict (thought, talk and deed), etc. and that K himself dedicated almost all his talks to explain and clarify it, I´d say that the point of our blah is (leaving aside what I´m calling the K factor in this post that can´t be proved as K himself acknowledged and, therefore, it is a matter of belief) to communicate our resistance to what K pointed out or our inability or our unwillingness to do it. What´s the point of communicating this? For those who are merely blah, completely unaware of it, I have no idea but the reason could be the very unawareness itself. For those who are already observing regardless of their own blah, it can be useful or object of fun, innocent fun, because it is seeing live and in real time precisely what K pointed out. Anyway, the effective factor, so to speak, in this case is not the blah but the observing that can be done anywhere else, no need come to a k´s forum. Unless you think you are going to find out something none did before and you´ll get a Nobel Prize :crazy_face:

1 Like

No, that is not a right question. How does Krishnamurti referers to himself as K!
He went and got a PHD, that is how :⁠-⁠)

1 Like