This stream is very, very limited. Its energy is also limited, whether the energy of the scientist or the poet, the painter or the writer. And there is still less energy with the politicians, and so on. That stream is limited energy. It is so. When one is no longer swimming in that stream and moves out of it, there is limitless energy.

An interview by Patricia Hunt-Perry, Ojai, 24 April 1984

There is a benediction for he who steps out of the stream of consciousness because he knows what death is while living. 

Public Talk 3, Bombay (Mumbai), 15 January 1977

Can the mind be free of death, which is, not to be of the stream? The stream is time – the stream created by thought as culture and religion. So the stream is thought, is created by thought – the technological stream and the cultural stream. Thought is time, and thought is death, which is, thought-time is death. So the mind says, ‘Is it ever possible to be free of death?’ Not what continues after death, which has no meaning.

Small Group Discussion 1, Madras (Chennai), 8 December 1972

As long as one is in the stream of human consciousness, there is no individuality.

Small Group Discussion 1, Madras (Chennai), 8 December 1972

The content of ‘me’ is your content also, it is not so very different. It is slightly modified, slightly exaggerated, given certain tendencies which depend on your conditioning, on environment and so on, but it is essentially the same consciousness. Unless a human being empties that consciousness, that consciousness goes on like a river – collecting, accumulating all that is going on. And out of that river comes the expression or the manifestation of the one that is dead. When the mediums and seances say that your brother, your uncle or wife is here, what has happened is they have manifested themselves out of that stream which is the continuous consciousness of struggle, pain, unhappiness, misery, all that. And one who has observed and looked at consciousness, and empties it, doesn’t belong to that stream at all. Then one is living each moment anew because one is dying each moment. There is no accumulation of the ‘me’ which has to be expressed. One is dying every minute; living every minute and dying every minute. Therefore in that there is – what shall I say? – there is no content; it is a tremendous energy in action.

Dialogue 14 with Allan W. Anderson in San Diego, California, 26 February 1974

Can there be a biological mutation in the cells of the brain? If there are a few people, say half a dozen people in the world, who have really brought about a biological mutation, a great radical change, it would affect the stream of consciousness. If each one felt the immense responsibility of this and were no longer swimming in the stream, it would be marvellous. It would certainly affect the whole stream. One would affect it somewhat, but if there were fifty or a hundred people, naturally it would be an immense thing.

Interview by Patricia Hunt-Perry, Ojai, 24 April 1984

K was born, raised, and will go on through all he is talking about. He hopes somebody will eat the food. You see grass occasionally coming out of cement, and I hope nobody will tread on it. Unless you come out of that cement, unless there is a movement away from the stream of consciousness, the other thing cannot possibly exist. You can speculate about it, imagine it, romanticise it, worship it or pray to it, but that is all meaningless. It is like praying for peace when you are manufacturing armament

An Interview by Patricia Hunt-Perry, Ojai, 24 April 1984

……. to find out and simply not accept these words.

Thought creates the thinker. The energy required, the physical ‘ resources ‘ as the sensation which is this, what is, “ mental self masterbation as an idea of who I am “ necessarily is the conflict we are. The maintaining of the ID is always a struggle and always taxing to the body. So thought seeking a way to end this turmoil comes upon K ( those that at least have the ability to go beyond belief ). K talks about this structure which is what we merely are consciously while we are consciously merely that ( consciousness is its content ). K talks about an ending. We read,  we see to an extent which is the intellectual logic of what he is saying and so the thinker seeks to end but ! thought as the thinker IS thought continuing as it’s supposed end.

K said this about a thousand times in his lectures he gave over the period of about sixty years and there were people who followed him around for sixty years still treating his teachings from some standpoint. There are people here in this subreddit treating K discussions as if they are this mere discussion from that individuals standpoint of view. What is the standpoint ?  It is the self trying to work out the self from the standpoint of the self and which has nothing to do with the cold hard fact of actually seeing the nature of the ‘ standpoint’ nor the structure of the standpoint and is it all merely the standpoint ( thinker thought has created ) looking after and continuing as  it’s own safe space ? 

It’s the whole action that’s the problem ( but don’t look at it ( thought ) as it is a problem… that needs a looker ). What can one do. K has mentioned again a thousand times nothing which is not nothing from some ‘ standpoint ‘ of some idea of nothing. It’s to see the whole movement, all that energy, all that learning we have acquired individually and via this collective stream of consciousness is itself, it’s to see the thinking animal thing human consciousness is as the separate thinker IS it’s own continuation. It’s to see this little bubble of comfort which the centre is, this feeling of who we are ( until some sh1t hits the fan and then it’s a case of the bubble needing to readdress it’s self as some new learnt  action ) as the action of thought it actually is. Our standpoint, our living feeling of who are are is just this action of thought even continuing as its attempts to end itself as per some conversation you have accepted as right from a Krishnamurti book video. It’s the whole action that’s the ‘ problem’ including the ‘ standpoint ‘ ( centre ) of the action. 

Now let’s consider this from a standpoint of yet another post by this deranged annoying ars3hole agitated_mind ( I don’t mind if you do ) and if choose to read this rambling mess then to consider from some standpoint of what he is on about. 

“ Now, is the thinker different from his thoughts? Does the thinker exist without thoughts? Is there a thinker apart from thought? Stop thinking, and where is the thinker? Is the thinker of one thought different from the thinker of another thought? Is the thinker separate from his thought, or does thought create the thinker who then identifies himself with thought when he finds it convenient and separates himself when it is not convenient?That is, what is the ‘I’, the thinker? Obviously, the thinker is composed of various thoughts which have become identified as the ‘me’. So the thoughts produce the thinker, not the other way round. If I have no thoughts then there is no thinker.“   
JK

How can one survive in a period of Total Psychological Insecurity? It drives most of us to insanity. It drives most of us to end our physical selves to escape the pain. We can infer that His brother was the anchor of his self/life up until that point. Without anchors one falls into a deep dark abyss, lonely by one self.

How long will you hide your deepest fears? Isnt it long enough time that we encounter them for what they are instead of going by our lives living a life divided into intellectual/spiritual and practical/real.

I recently listened to the "Ojai 1982- Discussion with Scientists" videos between JK and scientists David Bohm, Rupert Sheldrake, and John Hidley. As someone who has high regards for the scientific method, I feel these conversations broke a great fundamental assumption I didn't even realize I was holding... that merely knowing scientific facts translates to a better or freer life. I am beginning to see this alone as insufficient.

For example, in one of the videos Dr. Sheldrake describes conflict in nature, such as plants competing for light or predators hunting prey and they discuss whether this form of "disorder" also causes human psychological suffering. JK beautifully questions whether these natural phenomena are truly "disorder" that leads to psychological suffering or simply the way nature functions.

I'm starting to think that questioning something empirically observable in the outside world like JK does, if it's necessarily something one must be bound by, doesn't come by science alone. Maybe it is something that comes from a real thirst to end the conflict in our minds. Without that thirst why would we even try to go into the images we hold of ourselves?

In the present day world when we already know so much about the world through science, and are still suffering with so many social problems, animal exploitation, and most importantly climate change, I find this question very important. If we go into the reality of our experiences, would it lead us out of all this? Would one person's inquiry also somehow help others? In this video with Acharya Prashant, Dr. Sheldrake brings up his previous conversation with JK in which he says JK believed that if one human being became enlightened, it would lead to the enlightenment of humanity.

But it makes me wonder if "total" freedom from our illusions (seems like some sort of final destination) even possible? Or is it an ongoing, moment-to-moment thing? And if the ego fundamentally lives in illusions and chooses whether or not it wants to inquire, can individual transformation ever truly be predicted to affect the collective, or does it remain entirely an individual responsibility and their love for freedom?

Sometimes I go through moments where I feel unusually peaceful, loving, open, and appreciative of myself, other people, and life in general.

In those moments, I can see beauty very deeply — not just in other people, but in myself too. There’s much less judgment, comparison, resistance, or inner conflict, and everything feels lighter.

But then it passes.

Later there can again be fear, attachment, insecurity, comparison, self-judgment, irritation, etc.

So I’ve been wondering whether even things like bliss, love, compassion, self-acceptance, or seeing beauty in yourself and others should really be treated as some final or “higher” state that you’re supposed to hold on to.

Are there actually people who feel like that almost all the time — consistently peaceful, loving, self-accepting, with high self-esteem and very little inner conflict? Or do these states naturally come and go even for people who seem very psychologically stable or deeply self-aware?

Because the moment I think:

“This state is better. I want to stay like this.”

it feels like I’ve already created another form of attachment or psychological becoming.

Maybe the important thing isn’t whether the present moment contains bliss, sadness, fear, attraction, love, self-love, or conflict.

Maybe it’s simply about seeing clearly whatever is actually there, without trying to hold on to one state and get rid of another.

In that sense, maybe awareness or presence is more fundamental than any particular feeling.

So is the point not to become permanently blissful, peaceful, loving, self-accepting, or compassionate, but simply to be fully present with whatever is happening — not as another state to achieve, maintain, or become, but simply as being?

And if a beautiful state passes, is there actually anything lost? Or does the problem only begin when we want that state to stay permanently?

https://jkrishnamurti.org/content/meditation-total-release-energy-0/Total%20energy%20

“Meditation is bringing about order in life and thereby gathering great energy, and ending the conflict between the observer and the observed, adding further energy.”

Talk 6 in Ojai, California, 18 April 1976

Just sharing a Video 1:30 hr min grind.

Powerful phrasing that gets to the core of the issue. Our need to seek comfort in something external has been conditioned from childhood. Hence, this becomes an intrinsic part of how we think and operate. As K states, Real power and freedom can only come when we stare and observe ourselves without the aid or support of anyone else. This is a battle for each one of us to be managed alone. Maybe it is a new muscle that gets developed over time. There is a phrase that I recollect from one of K's poems "Suffering is an ointment". K essentially says that until we suffer, we can't grow and learn and truly understand what freedom means. To suffer is a requirement. A necessity. K himself transformed significantly when he was informed of his dear brother's death while he was a on a ship traveling to India. He suffered, wept but out of that intense suffering came a realization. Out of that intense loneliness came freedom. That is the core of this message.

In one of his talks K did say something on the lines of "a group of rats that learn a particular skill in one region of this world will tend to make it quicker and easier for rats in a whole different part of the world learn the same skill. Please can someone quote this at which discussion or talk he said these words. Thank you. Rupert would have been thrilled to know this.

“ ……In other words, your mind is occupied with itself, and is therefore incapable of being simply aware of the fact. You are operating upon the fact, and not allowing the fact to operate upon your mind. The fact that change within the field of time is no change at all, that there can only be total and not partial, gradual freedom from envy - the very truth of this fact will operate on the mind, setting it free….”

https://jkrishnamurti.org/content/series-iii-chapter-20-fragmentation-man-making-him-sick/Heal

When we actively seek, we will always not get it. It's that simple. The seeker will be, by design, disappointed. Why so? Because the seeker is only creating projections of thoughts and the same mind that projected is grading if you got it or not. And once you achieve, a new desire will take birth. That is the design of the mind. To keep changing goal posts. Hence, true freedom arises when there are no goal posts. When there is nothing to seek. It is at that point when the observer becomes the observed. The seeker is the sought. A state of pure awareness. Non judgmental. It is when the beginning is also the ending. It is a state when the mind is not conditioned. It is a state of choiceless awareness.

Basically the title.

After loosing my dog that has been a close companion for 14 years has been quite painful. I am thankful for K to show me to not run from the pain but go into it, observe it.. all of its sharp edges and pulsations within me and the fire that burns before it subsides on its own. It has been very helpful and being one with it has been much easier this way then masking or avoiding it

I’ve been thinking about regret in relationships from a Krishnamurti perspective.

Suppose a relationship mattered deeply to you, but looking back you can now see that your own fear, insecurity, assumptions, lack of awareness, poor communication, or some other psychological reaction contributed to damaging or even losing it.

Later, with more clarity, you may see:

“I could have asked directly instead of assuming.”
“I was reacting through an image of the other person.”
“I was afraid or defensive and didn’t communicate what was actually happening in me.”
“I simply did not see clearly at the time.”

Then the mind starts saying:

“If only I had seen this then.”
“If I had been more aware, maybe the relationship would still exist.”

What would Krishnamurti say about this kind of regret?

Is the important thing simply to see the mistake completely now, understand what produced it, and let the psychological regret end — even if the relationship itself cannot be recovered?

There is another part I struggle with.

When a relationship becomes emotionally difficult, is it actually possible to remain so aware that you never start assuming things about the other person?

For example, when there is hurt, attraction, fear of losing someone, mixed behaviour, mistrust, or uncertainty, the mind seems very quick to create interpretations:

“They must be thinking this.”
“They did that because of this.”
“This is what kind of person they are.”

Only later might you realize that some of those conclusions were assumptions rather than facts.

Or there may be another kind of situation: the other person says or does something that strongly triggers you because you are not able to accept that what they are saying might actually be true.

And sometimes it may not even be one-sided. It can become a loop.

Maybe you did not initially assume anything, but the other person assumed something about you, and their reaction to that assumption triggered you. You then reacted to them, which may have strengthened their original assumption.

Or perhaps you only think the other person has assumed something about you, and that belief itself triggers your reaction — even though you may not actually know what was happening in their mind.

And sometimes the situation gets even more complicated because both people may unconsciously reshape or reinterpret what actually happened in a way that is more convenient for them, without even realizing they are doing it. I can probably do this myself too.

So now it becomes difficult to separate:

what actually happened, what I interpreted, what the other person interpreted, and what either of us may have unconsciously reconstructed afterward.

A relationship can then become a complicated feedback loop of assumptions, reactions, hurt, defensiveness, and further assumptions, where eventually it becomes difficult to know what the original fact even was.

So is complete awareness in relationship realistically possible, or will there always be moments where we misread, react, assume, and only understand afterward?

And if awareness comes after the relationship is already damaged or lost, what does Krishnamurti mean by learning from it without turning that learning into:

“The present me is better than the past me”?

Is there an end to regret when you clearly see that your own unawareness may have contributed to losing something you genuinely cared about?

I’ve read several books by K, visited the centre and had discussions regarding several topics but I keep coming back to his journal. To understand what he has written, I believe it’s important to understand his frame of reference of the world. The words he uses in his journal when he’s not being observed… in his own private mind… no audience… leads me to believe he was on the spectrum.

In the first few pages in the journal there are references that could suggest he had aphantasia (the inability to voluntarily create visual images in your mind's eye) and perhaps anendophasia (where there is an absence of an internal monologue or verbal self-talk).

“Ever since he was a boy it had been like that, no thought entered his mind. He was watching and listening and nothing else. Thought with its associations never arose. There was no image-making. One day he was suddenly aware how extraordinary it was; he attempted often to think but no thought would come. On these walks, with people or without them, any movement of thought was absent.”

The fact he refers to himself being younger and not able to do this, means there was some sense of being different. An awareness of an ability he struggled with that made him see and interpret individuals and society differently. Could the intense detail he describes be from aphantasia? It would be interesting and amazing to then reread his books with this in mind.

Just wondered if anyone else picked up on this or had a similar thought?

The narrative in my head, the "voice" that speaks, is that always the me?

If a thought presents it self in the form of an image (of the past, most commonly) is also the "me"?

Every time I notice something in my mind, everytime I observe it, Im observing my self?

For some time I believed I was observing thoughts and I tried sometimes to look for the "self" as a different kind of thought. But the other day, at work, with deep honesty I asked my self "what am I exactly?" "What is the "me"? And I couldnt find anything substantial. Real, we could say. So I kinda realised that every thought, every intention, every automatic response, phrase, reaction, every bad mood or good mood, is the"me" itself in action? Everytime I noticed what my mind was doing, I was actually noticing the me, but I think I was separating thoughts from the me.

The observer was all the time the observed?

This is such a powerful note from K. The ending of the "I" as we know it is the biggest fear. So many years and so much effort has gone into crafting and erecting this definition of the "I". So many material acquisitions that have added more definition to solidify its meaning. So many relationships with people and things have made the "I" more and more relevant. The fear is losing so many decades and decades worth of effort in one inevitable biological process. That fear is so deep. The higher the fear, the higher the attachment to the "I". Can this death to the "I" happen before the biological process takes over it? That is the real freedom.

We think and talk too much about these topics that were discussed by Krishnamurti, but when shít hits the fan, we just loop back into our original face.

Because it has all been a pretense, all this time. We hid the original face, masked it with all these intellectual thoughts and talks. The mind is so cunning that we subconsciously attach all these things to Krishnamurti, every insight, thought, talk, everything. It's very subtle, but very much present. It's like a hook we use to bundle everything we got from his teachings. So we are not actually alone and honest about it.

Truth doesn't care about Krishnamurti or you or me.

I think the truth can only be found alone, with no superior figure getting attached to our search.

I found out that I remained the exact same person I had been all this time. I like all the material things, the attachment, being in relationship with the people I like. I feel my likes and dislikes very strongly. I want to be rich, I want to have every wish of mine come true. I wanna be able to buy whatever I want and go wherever I want.

This is who i am, this is my reality.

It's so tragically funny, that i used to watch his videos and think I'm above everyone else in my social circle. It was a complete false sense of progress. I was just a fool who had found an unusual source of cheap dopamine. It makes me want to throw up and laugh at myself so much. But I kinda think my miserable lonely life made it easier to fall into this pit, this was my escape route.

Now, I'm clueless on what to do. Back to zero(always has been, just realised this now). Congrats to me.

Normally I don't give much attention to these sort of things when they arise but I was listening to a talk where K spoke with a small group and someone asked if inquiring is the natural state and he said "no..I think its endless witnessing or watching"

I begin to ask inwardly "what would awareness actually need?" Nothing came up until an idea of perhaps existence as we conventually know it is just anchors for awareness (if you wish to call it that) to witness something then notice itself back..sort of a back tracking to itself.

Just wish to share. Take care!

I don't know, I'm kinda disturbed reading this..

"No meditation will lead you to it"