I knew Krishnamurti personally from 1958 till his death in 1986. I have recently published a book about my interactions with him. It includes interviews with senior associates of K such as Achyut Patwardhan, Vimala Thakar, Radha Burnier and Mark Lee and a dialogue David Bohm, Asit Chandmal and I had with Krishnaji in 1977. The book is now available on the internet as an ebook or paperback / hardback and the link is as follows:
Books by J.K. and about him : 1. Freedom from the Known 2. First and Last Freedom 3. Think on these things 4. Commentaries on Living 5. Biographies by Mary Lutyens and Pupul Jayakar 6. Krishnamurti : the man, the mystery and the message by Stuart Holroyd
Science and Spirituality.
Yes, I have been doing this all my life, provided the other person is interested in knowing. Responses of people are variable depending on whether they are interested in this inquiry or wish to cling to their existing beliefs.View all answers to this question
Yes. One lives without conflict.View all answers to this question
They will never die but they will also not be popular since people are not interested in the truth, they are looking for satisfaction.Truth is often disturbing.View all answers to this question
Without doubt, he was a rare and exceptional human being.
Self-knowledge is universally accessible but the total transformation he talked about may not be.View all answers to this question
By staying with questions, watching oneself 'in the mirror of relationship' with a learning mind.View all answers to this question
No. The real barriers to truth are within oneself. Self-knowledge can reduce them so that insight becomes more possible, but one cannot demand insight. It is a creative perception.View all answers to this question
Learn about yourself by watching with an inquiring mind and free your mind of its conditioning. Real change is a by-product of understanding and cannot be obtained through directed effort. Only the trivial can be taught, the profound has to be learnt for oneself.View all answers to this question
Agreement and disagreement are both unintelligent responses to a statement, because they bring nothing new and therefore lead to no learning.The only intelligent response is to carefully listen to the statement (irrespective of who has made it), inquire what it means and whether that is true? Do not answer that question from memory since memory is conditioned; stay with it and explore it through watching within oneself in daily life.View all answers to this question
The talk of total transformation. We do not know what that is and it has no value to just accept that because he has said it.
One must stay with that question without forming an opinion about it. It is right to say one does not know when one does not know : neither believe, nor disbelieve.
Dialogue is a state of mind. If one has a learning mind one is constantly in dialogue with oneself. If one does not have a learning mind, there is no dialogue, either with oneself or with others. Organization can provide a forum for it but not bring it about.Since truth is beyond the known, all insight is spontaneous, whether in organized dialogue or elsewhere in life.
That is why it is pathless.
To some extent. One has to be watchful of this all the time and not form an opinion about it.View all answers to this question
You can live the teachings only to the extent you deeply understand what they are pointing to. That requires investigation of what K is saying and the perception of the truth for oneself. Intellectual understanding is not the realization of the truth.View all answers to this question
It has value only to the extent the participants have a learning mind; otherwise it is not a dialogue and it degenerates into a debate or an exchange of ideas.View all answers to this question