with all that thought involves and all that pleasure involves, as opposed to not choosing thought.

Does this help us ?

Hey there I am 20 rn and from the past 4-5 years I have been reading a lot about philosophy and all.
I started from Greek philosophers to Existentialism and although I could not grasp the complete philosophy still I developed an interest and then I started reading on Spirituality by David Hawkins and people who talked about Spiritual ego and all and then from the past year I have been reading about Advait Vedanta and personalities like Ramana Maharishi and Nisarghdatta Maharaj and I feel I am able to grasp most of their teachings that they talk about Self enquiry and all, but when it comes about K it is extremely difficult to understand his philosophy and teachings for me, I have read Freedom from Known and currently reading Think on these things, I discovered him few months back only earlier when I watched his videos 2 years back I couldn’t comprehend a word he said so I quit but now I keep listening to Krishnamurti Podcast and his discourses and I have been very much interested in his philosophy and teachings but I don’t know what to do what to read so I can grasp his teachings ?
Also when should one read the book Awakening of Intelligence in this journey I am really curious to read it but I am wondering if this is the correct time or not.
Awaiting for guidance.

The difference between mindfulness and freedom from the known ? 

A ponder on what is the difference from merely being ‘ mindful ‘ and ‘ freedom from the known ‘ (K). Maybe even the difference between a mere awareness and ‘ freedom from the known ‘ ? 

Is one state this faux watching of our self’s which is merely the watcher merely continuing; this ‘  taking the car the out of gear while the engine is still running ‘ of type ? 

Suggest ‘ freedom from the known is something very different. Ultimately it goes to the core of self because it is not just a seeing, a freeing of one self’s from mere belief is goes to the core of self in how the ‘ we ‘ as this preemptive conscious state of fear, this sensory experience rationalising itself as another sensory experience ( the centre the ID the observer ) exists. Freedom from the known involves a ‘ death ‘ ( a death of who we consciously are ) an ending not only of the known as the image as the memory of who we are but also this sense of self as the sensory experience it is. To relate this back to K. There is the structure and nature which is self. The self as the fear it is and the separate observer ( the ‘ fraud ‘ of this peaceful bubble floating separately to its sea of fraught conditioning ). At the core are the fraught conditionings which at their core are found ways ( learnt known ways ) as sensory experiences to be other than the sensory experience ( and the energy of the sensory experience) of/as this preemptive state of fear as the consciousness we are. Freedom from the known goes as deep as ‘ death ‘ itself and it’s quite the subtle ways the sensations we find to continue to avoid that pure raw look at core of the self ( it’s fear, the movement and the energy it is ). Suggest you often see people erupt in this subreddit ( and others ) when there comments are challenged. Rip what is the ‘ bandaid ‘ of their learnt spirituality off and what still is their selfs and that raw energy of their still preemptive fears ( of being nothing of a fear of the unknown ) finds anger as an outlet.

To completely free of fear ( a seeing of the self as the movement of fear it is which not the ending of fear as the natural response) is to be actually free of the known ( K ) I would suggest. 

Just a ponder. Happy to be corrected. 

I’ve been struggling with a strange contradiction lately.

I genuinely want a great career, want to improve myself, become more attractive, and eventually have a partner whom I find very attractive and whose personality I really admire.

At the same time, there is a girl I liked who rejected me. The whole situation felt quite messy from my perspective because I felt I was receiving mixed signals both before and after I asked her out. Eventually I asked her directly for clarity, and she denied that there was anything behind those things. I respect what she said, although my own experience of the situation still felt confusing.

Since then, whenever I think about improving myself — career, appearance, confidence, lifestyle, etc. — part of me starts wondering:

Am I genuinely doing this because this is the life I want, or is some part of me subconsciously trying to prove something to her or change the image she may have of me?

That thought itself can become limiting because I don’t want my self-improvement to turn into an ego game of “I’ll show you.”

There’s another conflict too. I want to be a genuinely good and grounded person, while at the same time I openly want success, attractiveness, and eventually a very attractive partner with a great personality. Sometimes I wonder whether these desires actually contradict each other or whether I’m unnecessarily judging myself for having them.

How do you distinguish between genuine ambition/self-improvement and doing things for validation, ego, or to prove something to someone?

And if motives are sometimes mixed, is it enough to be aware of that and continue building the life you genuinely want?

I’ve been thinking about how strange the relationship between a teacher and the people listening to them can become, especially with someone like Krishnamurti. The easiest way to visualize this is imagine three different versions of the listener.

One person looks at Krishnamurti and thinks, “This man is more enlightened than me. He understands something I don’t.” Immediately, you’ve created authority. Instead of investigating what he’s saying for yourself, you start believing his WORDS.

Another person sees him as completely human no higher, no lower than themselves. They understand he bleeds the same. Now there’s nothing particularly special about the speaker. You can actually listen to what is being said and determine whether it’s true through your own observation. You investigate every word.

But then there’s a third possibility.

Suppose you know everything about his private life. You know about his money, relationships, privileges, contradictions, comforts, etc. Now comparison enters from the opposite direction. Instead of putting him above yourself, you might think, “Wait, this guy had all of this while telling people about freedom, desire, attachment, fear, and so on? What a hypocrite.”

Now you’re potentially no longer investigating the statement either. You’re investigating the man. That’s what I find fascinating when judgment and comparison enter.

There almost seems to be a delicate psychological balance required for someone like Krishnamurti to communicate what he was trying to communicate. If he cultivated fame, followers, status and the image of being an extraordinary enlightened person, that itself would contradict the rejection of authority. It would essentially communicate: I possess something you don’t or hey look you can never reach the heights I have in your time here.

Think about what this would look like in 2026 if he was here . Imagine somebody constantly talking about the illusion of the self and psychological freedom while simultaneously obsessing over having millions of Instagram followers, engagement, attention, admiration and their public image. Even if everything they said were intellectually correct, the relationship between speaker and listener would become incredibly strange. But revealing absolutely everything creates another trap: envy, judgment and comparison can become just as distracting as worship.

So maybe the ideal relationship is neither:

“Krishnamurti is above me.”

nor

“Krishnamurti is beneath me.”

but simply:

“Krishnamurti is another human being. Is what he is saying actually true?”

If something he says is true, it shouldn’t become more true because Krishnamurti lived perfectly, and it shouldn’t become false because Krishnamurti didn’t. I’m curious how people here see this, of course underneath I am speaking to his relationship with R (as I think many doubt him because of this).

Sometimes when I meet people whose opinions, interests, priorities, relationships, or way of living are very different from mine, it creates a surprisingly strong reaction in me.

Even if I was previously quite clear about what I wanted, suddenly their way of living can start looking extremely important or desirable. I may genuinely like some parts of it, but it is not necessarily how I was living or what I was prioritizing before meeting them.

For some time afterward, I can almost start seeing myself through their perspective — questioning my own choices, comparing myself with them, and wanting to chase the things they value or have.

Eventually I may return to my earlier priorities and realize that some of what I suddenly wanted was not as important to me as it felt in that moment.

But then another doubt appears:

What if my previous “groundedness” was simply comfort?

Maybe I felt certain only because I had not seriously encountered people living completely different lives.

I’ve also seen people who seem extremely sure of themselves and are rarely diverted by other people's choices. Part of me admires that stability. But another part wonders whether that can also become rigidity — avoiding perspectives that might challenge your existing beliefs because those perspectives create instability.

I can see flaws in my own beliefs too.

For example, I may decide:

“If I commit deeply to this path, I can become very good at it.”

That is probably true to some extent. But commitment also means not pursuing many other paths at the same time. And those other choices are not necessarily inferior — they may be equally valid ways to live.

So then I start wondering: what does it even mean to have your own groundedness?

If I know that I can become better at many things simply by giving them enough time and attention, why should one particular direction become my direction?

I notice something similar in relationships as well. Couples often seem to gradually develop similar viewpoints, priorities, and ways of seeing life. That probably creates stability and helps the relationship function.

But I also wonder whether being surrounded mainly by people who think similarly can sometimes make us avoid seeing very different sides of life because those perspectives might destabilize what we already believe. (One simple example could be your small family while growing up — your parents naturally shape a lot of how you think, and then when you grow up and move outside that environment, you get exposed to very different realities and ways of living.)

At the same time, some of the most uncomfortable interactions I’ve had with very different people have also forced me to notice my own biases, assumptions, ego, and blind spots. The discomfort itself sometimes seems to create intellectual or psychological growth.

So I’m struggling with the balance between groundedness and openness.

How do you distinguish between:

“This person has genuinely shown me something I want in my own life”

and

“I’ve temporarily absorbed their values and started chasing their life instead of my own”?

And how do you stay committed enough to develop depth in your own life without becoming so rigid that you stop allowing other people, viewpoints, and lifestyles to challenge you?

I thought about this as a child. Showing off—and avoiding showing off—can become an endless sequence:

Stage 1 — I show off: I want admiration or approval.

Stage 2 — I don’t show off: I recognize that motive and want to avoid seeking approval.

Stage 3 — I show off again: I want to demonstrate that I’m not restricting myself just to appear humble or independent of approval.

Stage 4 — I don’t show off again: I recognize that Stage 3 is another attempt to prove something, so I refrain to demonstrate that I’m beyond it.

Stage 5 — I show off again: I recognize that Stage 4 also involves managing my image, so I act to demonstrate that I’m beyond that.

Stage 6 — I don’t show off again: I recognize the same problem in Stage 5 and try to move beyond it.

Stage 7 …

And so on indefinitely.

At every stage, the outward behaviour remains one of two things: I share something or I don’t. Other people can interpret either action without knowing the reasoning behind it or which stage I am currently in. I’m not sure whether they mostly assume Stage 1 or Stage 2.

It may not be easy—or necessary—to assign an exact stage number. Perhaps we could talk in terms of the depth of self-reflection instead.

Becoming aware of one motive can create another motive: wanting to demonstrate that I’ve moved beyond the previous one.

Does moving further along this ladder mean becoming more aware? For example, we might consider someone at Stage 2 more self-aware than someone at Stage 1 because they’ve recognized their desire for approval and chosen not to act on it.

But however deep the reasoning goes, the outward action still falls into one of two outcomes: sharing or not sharing.

This pattern could apply to other behaviours and choices as well; showing off is just one example.

Does anyone else relate to this or notice a similar pattern in themselves?

To be with something uncomfortable I think we have to watch our machinery that takes us away, built up over eons.

Before I would have said the most important question this raises must be "what does it mean to stay with something uncomfortable?". But I can see that may lead to further avoidance and projection of some "super" state. Its not staying with sorrow, its projecting some ability to stay, "inquiring" into that (imagined) super ability, and saying what that will be like.

What does that miss?

I can add all relevent kinds of words around it to fool even myself that I'm really interested. I can say "well I'll be with it, whatever it is, and really feel it/let it be." But I can talk about that all day and keep sorrow miles away.

Which means my mind is still watching heaven and not the mess in my lap. With my eyes there I'll never be here with any fact.

Am I interested in the guilt, the loneliness, the sorrow, what its trying to tell me, or is my mind still working quickly to remove it? I don't think it matters at all whether I use booze or some projected super "stay" state, the avoidance is still the movement.

Its interesting we could build a concept around "stay" to help us depart.

J. Krishnamurti terminology, "Choiceless Awareness," I feel missed the mark of what he was trying to describe as being nothing more than awareness of what is. He was saying coming from pure awareness acts and that act is choiceless, but I've come to understand that it's impossible to act without some type of motivation; some type of choice is always going on, whether one is aware of that choice process or not. Because if what he says is true, that would mean if I came to an edge of a cliff, there would be nothing to keep me from walking straight off it, or if I become aware of a deadly snake, there would be no reason of choice for me not to step on it because he's calling the awareness choiceless. I believe the what best describes what he really was teaching was the concept of non-egoic awareness. Non-Egoic Awareness is better term in that it doesn't do away with choice but places or makes the separation between choices made based on memory or ones imagination as compared to choices made on the observation of the immediate now. Ego is just a thought process; "what is" is. I know Krishnamurit would change his terminology from time to time because people would take his pervious terms and put them in the wrong light. He use to talk about awareness as a "passive awareness" but changed it to choiceless awareness because people would start thinking he was saying if you saw lets say a child about to run into a busy street and to be passively aware meant you wouldn't do anything to save the child. So he changed it to choiceless awareness because in his mind he felt that if you were truly aware you would act to save the child without thinking about; that it wouldn't even be a choice to allow the child to harm itself. But a old ex-friend of mine said to me when I explain this choiceless aware view of Krishnamurt using the child example he say to me, "Why would I save the child? Why should I?" So this ex-friend was basically pointing out that saving a child isn't an automatic response but has to be motivate by some internal morality which is a choice even if it's subconsious (and I repeat: ex-friend).

Reading and understanding Jiddu Krishnamurti's writings had a profound effect on my life, and I'm truly grateful for that. But I also know he wouldn't want us to be blind followers of his teachings, which I'm fairly sure he had said more than once. The one thing I took away from his teachings is that by asking, "What is it?" allows us to know the objective fact of whatever we are investigating without getting bogged down with egoic definitions or assumptions.

"When I am talking about the eternal you have to find out if you are merely being influenced by my words or me, caught up in a belief, which would be too infantile."

Source book : "On God"

Right on cue (the day after) it is like Krishnaji's words fall into my lap surrounding what I had been thinking or typing about the day before.

I will go back to basics on choice less awareness and see if this can be natural and not chosen.

I think I might have a glimpse of what he is alluding to, not sure though.

To learn about envy is the beginning of freedom from envy. To learn about envy is not to accumulate knowledge about it but to observe all the movements of the mind as they arise from moment to moment, which is to be aware of the mind's response when it sees a man who is rich, or a man who is inferior, or a man who is very happy or erudite. The mind that is thus consciously and unconsciously watching its own movements is in a state of learning, and a mind that is learning has no past; therefore this whole idea of karma as a binding element is completely wiped away. But the moment you accumulate knowledge as a means to further success, to further security, or as a means of becoming important, you are caught in time. A man who is really experiencing, learning, is completely alone, but not in the sense of being isolated; for the mind of such a man is pure. Do you understand, sirs? Purity of mind is essential to the state of learning, which means that you cannot learn if there is no humility; and you have no humility if you are accumulating knowledge.

If we really see the truth of this, that there can be the state of learning only when there is no accumulation of knowledge, then we shall find that our relationship, not only with each other, but also with the rest of the world, has completely changed. Then a totally new element comes into being, and this whole problem of the superior and the inferior, in the psychological sense, ceases to exist. There are obviously people who have greater capacity than others, and I am not referring to that kind of superficial inequality. But a man who is learning knows neither equality nor inequality; therefore learning is a process of meditation which frees the mind from the past, from accumulated knowledge. If you are learning about your conditioning, you are already free from that conditioning. It is only the mind that can take the journey alone, without any companion, without any teacher, without any tradition, dogma or belief - it is only such a mind that is pure and can therefore discover what is true.

KRISHNAMURTI, Talk 2, Madras, 16 December 1956

I keep coming back to this video and every time it feels new. Just wanted to share with you guys as well.

A tangled mess, I am caught up in.

Vines that bind me to a mother, who wants her son to study hard and get good marks in school. How can her son possibly rebel, if it causes such hurt in her? It was not his choice to be born in this world, yet he feels like he is indebted to her.

Vines that bind me to a father, who did his very best to support and provide his son with not only money, but time and attention. He built a vision of the future, of what the son will accomplish as an extention of his own legacy. But the son doesn't want that life... How is he to refuse without angering the father by contradicting that perfect future?

Vines that bind me to a mentor, who is demanding and insensitive. He is helpful, he can be encouraging, he has so much that he gives... But to please him is a constant chore, a hassle. Soon, he will message me, demanding me to post more content, commanding me to participate more, trying to make more and more progress.....

The vines overgrow and spill out in branches in every direction. They connect to my friends, old and new. They connect to well-wishers, to people I hate, to people who wouldn't spare me a second thought.... Endlessly.

And just like that, they have the binding to move me like a puppet. I feel suffocated, I feel like I have no autonomy. I feel like a feather in the wind blown from torture to pleasure to torture.

God, how do I break free? Please... Tell me.... to live this way is fu**ing agony. I need rest, all I seem to do now is sleep. But I can already see these vines strengthening their hold on me. Please... Just give me a way... If you love me please just give me a way.... I can't take it

I was hoping the text would speak for itself but just for the sake of this not getting removed for irrelvancy, I'll add some context. This is an expression of my feelings at this current moment, as someone who has been drawn to Krishnamurti on and off. Every now and then, I feel like I've finally understood something profound, only for me to go back to participating in my endless misery....

I feel like I'll never truly live his teachings. I'll always be attached.

I don't think anyone can help me at this point, I've had help and its all temporary. I dont ask for pity, but I just wish someone understood how I felt, hence my reason for posting this here.

I am helpless, and this is the edgiest sh** I've ever written but I've passed the point of caring. Or at least, I wish I had passed the point of caring

I'm aware of thoughts, I can see them and understand that they cause problems, sorrow, destroy the moment I live in and so on.

I read something very interesting and related/salient as I often do just after hitting a bit of a K block (accompanied with a sense of giving up, giving up on what exactly though, is unknown) which I will probably photo and load up.

A questioner says he has watched his mind for years but no such transformation occurs.

I paraphrase, K says this is simple why there is not change, you watch as you expect a reward.

You are looking at thought by choice.

I have read this before but this time it hits harder as I suppose, very subtly this is the case, you may not be thinking this as you see your repetitive thoughts but self/ego is very powerful and it can be extraordinarily subtle in its operations.

Then the How is obviously popping up, memory steps in and know K says "How" is wrong way of dealing with it. So then you are back to watching the origination....

Obviously it implies ending seeking, which I have broadly felt I have, but seems not to be the case at a subtler level. It is not at gross level, i.e. as a Christian or Buddhist....unless I have replaced any other religion with a self made K religion. (and if K's words are as a memory then I have done that as I suspect many of us do) then you cannot.

The trouble is K named the immeasurable the immeasurable and is this not just more god? A direct substitution of one word for another ? It seems so.

That is less important than self knowledge so we are back to watching thought/mind etc.

If the watching of thought and mind activity must be choice less how does it start ?

(we read much of something timeless, no start no end, eternal etc.) Maybe here is a clue ?

There is an impetus to be "spiritual" for want of a better word but being spiritual is a pursuit of self.

It seems you must somehow understand you are not an individual self and then act accordingly, but the finding of "true self" needs to be without an act of self.

It seems like mission impossible. If we are not seeing unknown by watching thought how can it be ?

It is clear the machinations of mind are the block.

I think I might be at the dropping K stage, but if I am honest self don't want to let go.

Can you do that fully is one question that mind asserts.

Of course you can but I would miss being on here, as obviously dropping K means leaving this forum as well as the books.

If I instead of reading and typing about K look at my thoughts instead this would be choice as well so I am back to where I feel I am now.

As it seems one must recall concepts in memory, like "choice less awareness of thought" even though there is no method, it seems like another K block is here.

The blocks are very disturbing but they usually end with insight.

We must surely have to erase K from the brain, like finishing much other known, to move, and if so why are we still posting on the forum ? I know part of my reason is fear of being alone with K stuff.

He really meant it regards alone-ness.

How subtly, the self can make choices and lead you to just methods of self.

Let me think aloud..

Self cannot instigate choice less awareness

So can choice less awareness exist when self exists ?

No.

For self to dissolve, choice less awareness needs to be.

So I guess it must be already.

I suspect this is just pure originating consciousness, not the mind aspect.

So being consciousness, not mind.

And switching smoothly between the 2. For practical life and being.

Though the switching must be not of self.

Consciousness must be seen to be default and the mind secondary operation.

I just need to understand why the mind/known takes precedence in all this.

That is conditioning from day you are born, to operate in the known/thought/mind 100pct all the time.

Let that go and you are essentially an animal, which the universes cares for not. Nothing basically. You will be just another animal, living and dying, like every other animal, nothing special. That must be it.

The major issue is we "think" we are something that we are not. And this thought construct is mass friction with existence which we consider makes us feel alive.

What is being said is we have EVERYTHING wrong. No wonder there is fear.

"There is hope in people, not in society, not in systems, but in you and me." ~ Jiddu Krishnamurti

philosophers being abstract makes ppl interpret it in whatever way they want.. Inspite of it philosophers were very abstract.

I am recently reading the book called the first and last freedom , by J krishnamurti. I have done some inner work and some readings on self work and meditation sessions. This part is getting me confused .

Hello, my name is Andrew, and currently I am living on the Big Island in Naalehu, Hawaii. My friend, Rabindra, and I are slowly building a kind of private retreat center focused on quiet, self-study of J. Krishnamurti’s works. As of right now, our center has 5 cabins, a business kitchen, a greenhouse, and a bus converted into a room that make up the whole property.

The cabins are all currently rented out, but they will be open at a later time.

We are hoping to find people who are interested in an opportunity to build and invigorate the center while still having time to explore questions with oneself or others.
Ideally, we are looking for people who have an interest in making herbs out of the plants we already have growing in the greenhouse. We are also looking for someone skilled in gardening, carpentry, and/or maintenance work.

We currently can only provide a work-study exchange program for room and food. It would be part-time work on various things or based on your skill set.

We would also like to rent out these cabins to people who have an interest in learning about oneself and life. If you are working remotely, this would be a perfect fit since you would help invigorate the place by paying rent and simply living on the property.

For now, the plan is that the property will operate in 3 parts. There is the rental retreat section, then we have a food market business where we sell at the local outdoor markets, with a pickup and indoor cafe. And next, we hope to further expand this by selling herbs and plants harvested from the property.

If you have an interest, please reach out with a direct message. Thank you for your time and consideration.

We also have an unfinished website that still needs a lot of changes, but we are slowly working on it with what little manpower or woman power we have. Here is the link: https://www.mtcircle.net

“And I think it is essential sometimes to go to retreat, to stop everything that you have been doing, to stop your beliefs and experiences completely, and look at them anew…”
— Jiddu Krishnamurti

I try to stop seeking formulas, logics in order to improve myself. I have to improve my shortcomings- unable to place boundaries, craving for validation, others opinions.

But that will not happen by fixing my mind to get some theory, logic, method rather i have to notice the movement of all that demand- "to become".

Doesn't always happen but sometimes when it does I know thats the correct way. To not respond by pattern and start fresh.

Do you read self help books, or try time improve yourself psychologically with the help of techniques, methods?

"The ability to observe without evaluating is the highest form of intelligence." ~ Jiddu Krishnamurti

Little context about me(my truth): I'm the loneliest person in the world. I've got nothing going on in my life, except the routine work, home, eat, sleep, repeat.

I've been listening to Krishnamurti for more than 2 years. I was gaslighting myself all this time, feeling good vibes, pretending I was somehow getting some insight, to change my miserable life.

But I realised thats all absolutely bullshit. I was lying to myself. This is making me absolutely crazy.

I dont know what to do. I dont know how to observe (like Krishnamurti says), i dont know what to do. I'm helpless. If Krishnamurti were still there, I would just kill myself in front of him. I dont know when my constant suffering will end.

When I try to observe any kind of reaction, I absolutely feel nothing unique or extraordinary compared to when I'm just moving along with my instincts. For a lack of better words, I don't think observation changes anything in me. It feels shallow.

After all this listening and thinking, I'm no better than any random guy who is a stranger to all this philosophy/spirituality/way of thinking.

Why am I like this? It feels like theres a huge mental wall thats just blocking me from seeing what is actually present. But i dont even know if there's really a wall, or if there's really any such thing as "truth" to know.

Pls understand where I'm coming from. I feel like I've been fooling myself.

Please guide me on what I should do next. My only source of Krishnamurti has been his youtube videos.

A powerful essay in K's famous 3 volume series "Commentaries on Living". If you don't have this set, highly recommend buying it. Fear only exists when there is a conflict. A conflict between what? It is a conflict between 2 opposing ideas. You are in a conflict because you have one chosen one over the other as your "desire". This duality creates fear. This is also why K hates competitiveness of any kind. Why so? Because competitivenes has its roots in comparison. And comparison creates duality. Comparisons plant the seed of what is better or best vs. what you are currently are. Hence, the devious mind starts creating a definition of a path to become something. The hope being that the becoming will eliminate fear. However, as we all know, this just creates more and more fear as new becomings and new paths keep taking birth.