r/Krishnamurti

I've been spending the last few years preparing for UPSC while also reading philosophy, especially Jiddu Krishnamurti.

Somewhere along the way, I realized that what interests me most isn't achievement alone, but understanding—of society, of the mind, and of ourselves.

I enjoy conversations that don't revolve around comparison, status, or proving who's right. Quiet people, long pauses, honest questions, and genuine curiosity feel far more meaningful to me than constant noise or small talk.

Outside exam preparation, I find myself listening to k on youtube . Nothing interests me more than watching k and watching myself ( earlier I used to watch web series , movies etc but now all that seems so superficial and childish , i get bored at all this )

Deeply I also see that I am conditioned . I have all the cleverness that a human has in his mind , jealousy, competitiveness, anger , seeking recognition and respect

All this , i have found in myself . But at the same time I see a gap has been generated between my thoughts and my reaction

I can see all these arising in my brain and I see these are taking so much of my energy and trying to make me think and act further. I don't react. I just see . Watch and it just gets normal again

I don't meet many people in everyday life who relate to this way of looking at things, so I thought I'd write here. If Krishnamurti's work has resonated with you—or if you've naturally arrived at a similar outlook—I'd be interested in hearing your perspective.

No expectations, no agenda. Just a conversation between two people who enjoy thinking deeply and value kindness, sincerity, and compassion.

Let us look at this question very simply, not as an intellectual theory or an idea to be debated, but as an actual, living fact.

When you say, "I am angry," "I am jealous," or "I am conditioned," there is the "I"—the entity that feels it is looking at the anger, the jealousy, or the conditioning. That "I" is the observer, and the anger is the observed. We have divided ourselves into these two parts, have we not? The watcher, and the thing being watched. The thinker separates himself from his thoughts to safeguard himself, to give himself continuity and permanency. He says, "I am different from this jealousy, and I am going to get rid of it, suppress it, or control it."

But is that division real? Or is it an illusion that we have accepted as a fact? Is the "I" actually separate from the jealousy? Or is the thinker his thought? Is the observer anything other than the observed?

Let us find out. Who is this observer who says, "I must control my anger," or "I must get rid of my fear"? Is that observer a separate, permanent entity, or is it simply the past? It is your memories, your conditioning, your accumulated knowledge, the words you use to judge and evaluate. When you feel anger, the observer immediately steps in, names it "anger," and says, "This is bad, I must suppress it." That naming, that condemnation, is the movement of the past.

Can you observe the observer by itself?

You cannot. You do not observe the observer in isolation. You can only observe the observer in its relationship to the observed, through its interference with "what is." At the moment of a direct feeling—say, at the split-second of intense violence or joy—there is neither the observer nor the observed. There is only that state. Then, a moment later, the observer comes in. The observer is the movement of thought, which is the past, the accumulated memory. This past interferes with the present. It says, "I have been angry before, I must escape from this." This very interference, this escape, this traditional approach to the present, is the observer.

So, if you do not name the feeling, if you do not try to run away from it or change it, is there a separate "you" who is angry? Or is there only the state of anger?

When you look at this very closely, you perceive that the observer is the observed. They are not two separate entities; they are already one. The division between them is an illusion created by thought to protect the "me" and the "mine."

If that is the actual fact, what happens to conflict? As long as there is a division between the observer and the observed, there must be a struggle—the "I" exercising will, discipline, or power to control, shape, or conquer the "what is." But when the mind sees this actual integrated fact, when the observer realizes that he is the observed—that he is the very fear or violence he is trying to escape—can there be any struggle at all? Can you fight yourself?

When there is no longer the creator of distance and time—which is the observer—what is left?

I used to read this guy back in early 20s..

I need some help so I remembered this name where I am going get that help

Idk what kind of help I need in my life , for most part I think I fool myself a lot

My interpretation of the observer is the observed is, The observer is your past hurt, past wants, past trauma, your past everything manifesting and gives you the definitive meaning of things which is the observed.

Therefore, If there is no division between it and you fully comprehend it, How can you view things in a way you have no judgement from the past?

i read “Total Freedom” recommended to me from someone i met in the park, and they’re REALLY into it and i’m someone who remains very open minded to all possibilities. i surrender to the flow of myself a lot and the unknown. i do not judge or discriminate others for anything at all and do not expect anything from anyone.

there’s some ‘teachings’ that have really rubbed me wrong by this human. i found myself disliking the heteronormative structure still implemented into said words spoken. that is not open. i dislike how this person chooses to detach from their upbringing/culture. stating that tradition or what not is irrelevant in a sense. i argue that knowing your roots and where you come from, is crucial to understanding diversity in communities. we need diversity.
i disliked how he stated he never took drugs and in turn, states that they’re unneeded. wrong again.
there are humans that come into this world, with severe tics, tourette’s, other severe mental/neurological disorders that cannot function without prescribed drugs. he does not specify which drugs. which are granted to us as a tool. not a means for addiction.
there is a difference only you can decipher, but for those who need them to function, they cannot just meditate it away.
i disliked how he advocated for all yet remained vegetarian. if you were truly for “all” you’d be wholly plant based, right? why not go all the way?
you’ve never been sick in your life, great. i argue that that also can happen due to strong genetics and intense caution to germ spread.

i feel there is a severe lack for accepting things as they are presented and more what they want it to be. that is so arrogant and not reality.

please discuss with me further or be open minded as i am. if you argue with me about him being right, i debate that that’s not different than any other religion based structure! which even though he himself renounced that title, the books still show up as “religious” books.

thank you.

I think Reddit/Krishnamurti would do well to create two sections.

One about gossiping about Krishnamurti and disappointment regarding Krishnamurti as a person and his personal life.

Second: about the actually Krishnamurti's talks, the real content.

It is such a waste of time and energy, constantly seeing threads discussing Krishnamurti's mistakes and inconsistency. Although I suspect the sections 'gossip and whining about Krishnamurti.' will win, because few people like to real look at themselves. Everyone is busy picking and correcting the mistakes of others.

Facing ourselves is damn difficult, it turns out, even though we think we are doing so.

Self-deception is something stronger than truly looking and seeing.

I am a student pursuing a PhD in Theoretical Physics. I remember Krishnamurti saying that it takes a lot of courage for a person to admit that he has never loved anyone. I can now relate to what he said.

I've been studying with concentration, which is effortful and easily disrupted by distractions. I want to explore a different quality of mind that Krishnamurti called attention.

For a long time, I used to get absorbed in physics textbooks. I now wonder whether I truly loved it or only used it as an escape.

Is it possible to study physics without becoming absorbed in the textbook? Can I write equations while remaining aware of my surroundings and the movement of thought?

I'll try this today.

I genuinely don't understand...

I feel as if I love and hate all of humanity at the same time...

On one hand, I feel contempt and indifference toward people. To me, everyone is an idiot, stupid, mediocre, hypocritical, foolish, and deluded, and not worth the devil's own bread. Sometimes I even feel like seeing the entire human race wiped out.

(That includes myself.)

On the other hand, if I see someone starving, if I see a dog starving, I feel a genuine desire to give that being affection, care, and comfort.

I feel an overwhelming urge to hug that poor soul, filthy and dressed in torn clothes, the one all of you walk past without even looking, that poor person who lies down on the streets and sometimes you step over them without even noticing!!!

When I see a dog starving with a broken leg...

I genuinely want to go over there and give that being shelter, food, and affection!!

I have no idea what the hell this thing I'm feeling is...

I no longer have any definition of what love is or what hatred is!!

This desire I have to take care of people has nothing to do with those foolish ideas and illusions people call kindness or morality...

It's simply something that arises within me spontaneously.

I'm going completely insane, and I no longer have any of those empty definitions of who I am. Yet only I know my true intentions the moment they arise!

I don't understand where I stand...

How can I want to take care of humanity and also want all of humanity to be wiped out at the same time???

When I see humanity at war, on one hand I want to hug them, kiss them, and tell them that all of this is unnecessary, that they can simply sit down together and drink a cup of tea. On the other hand, when I see humanity at war, I wish they would all drown in their own filth because they are the ones who chose to bring all of this absurdity into existence.

It seems when you attend, thought cannot be, there is observer aspect but thought ends as it seems focus can only be observer or observed at any one time. Mind has great difficulty being both, it becomes extremely taxing for the brain.

They are merely 2 aspects of the same process.

This is maybe why we commonly consider there is a separate observer from the observed as we generally switch between them almost unconsciously as we don't feel much importance in this.

Just as an example when you are angry you have total focus on anger so there is no division in the mind. When you look back the next day it is an observer looking at what was, a division.

Attention cannot be the aspects we consider observer and the observed at the same time.

There is a shift in focus between thinking (absorbs you) which takes focus away from being the observer.

They seem like 2 aspects of same mind.

Just as you cannot drive 2 cars at once, but the switching seems, like inconsequential gear changes..

This is maybe why we commonly consider there is a separate observer from the observed.

Observer being observed is hidden from you. I am getting some kind of feeling the mind hides aspects of its operation away when it comes under the microscope of attention.

That's interesting and tricky of it isn't it.

Whilst the mind acts as observer, the observed is awareness of senses, and cannot be thought.

I don't really know if this is much use to see though. It might be somehow useful to see that the mind is hiding aspects of itself making self and observer and observed more difficult to understand and see or in case of self, see through.

How difficult is this to actually live by in real life? K was an outlier for sure. For us ordinary mortals, this mindset is super difficult. Have any of you tried this mindset and what particular hurdles came in the path?

J Krishnamurthy

Krishnamurti argues that a peaceful and compassionate world cannot be created merely through political, social, or economic strategies such as ideologies or reforms. While these may change external conditions, they cannot remove the inner causes of conflict fear, greed, hatred, and ambition. He believes that real transformation begins with a profound psychological change in each individual through direct self-observation, not through following gurus, organized religion, or any ideology

What's your take on this?

Is this a proposition that is reasonable and can be realized ? Most people interested will understand what Krishnamurti said when he laid out his stall.

What would freedom in a world in chains be for a body, is it tenable and would it bring about peace in a world in chains ?

I find myself getting into flow state easier than being self-aware. For example, when I am studying, working or playing sports, I don't have any sense of time, environment or self. It often works in my favor because I am "one" with the activity I am doing. I am able to focus better when I am studying and score better when playing. Similarly, it is said that top athletes achieve flow state during their peak performance. I wouldn't call flow as self-awareness because it is academically defined as quite the opposite— "complete loss of self-awareness".

On the other hand, self-awareness helps me break old behaviors like scrolling. I would argue that when you are scrolling, you are "in the zone" similar to flow state where it is easy to loose awareness. The same thing happens with other addictions where you become "one" with the source of addiction and loose your sense of self.

My question is how can I be self-aware all the time if most tasks require me to give my complete attention which comes with the flow state. I have tried studying while being aware of my thoughts but it simply doesn't work. Self-awareness becomes especially difficult when the task at hand requires thinking because self-awareness ceases thoughts.

If you are "choosing" when to be self-aware, it goes against Krishnamurthi's choiceless awareness. It all seems so confusing to me. Can someone please explain it to me? Thanks!

Just wanted to get a sense of this sub. Jiddu was an atheist, not a theist. So I assumed everyone here was too, more or less.

But then I saw a post here mentioning God and using the concept to talk about some stuff and got curious.

PS: A couple of you pointed out that jiddu isn't an atheist, he is more of an agnostic ("you cannot know the unknowable"). In my head, agnostics and atheists are mostly the same, in that if there was an actual evidence of god, they both would believe in it, but otherwise neither feels there is enough evidence to believe in god.

View Poll

Any kind of Action but I'd be better if it's Good Actions . Like on what basis do ppl do good or bad ?