Video summary

J. Krishnamurti - Brockwood Park 1978 - Discussion 1 with Buddhist Scholars - Are you not saying...

Main summary

Key takeaways

News and Commentary

Overview

The discussion is framed as a four-way dialogue in which Buddhist scholars and J. Krishnamurti compare Buddhist doctrine with Krishnamurti’s own teaching. They then debate whether psychological liberation comes through knowledge, discipline, practice, or “progress,” versus through direct perception outside time.

1) Points of agreement: Krishnamurti and the Buddha

Dr. Walpola Rahula (Theravāda and Mahāyāna scholar) argues that Krishnamurti’s message closely matches the Buddha’s core teachings, though expressed in a modern “idiom.”

Parallels Rahula lists

  • Rejection of a creator God who rewards/punishes
  • Rejection of an eternal unchanging soul/Atman
  • Human life as marked by suffering, conflict, and sorrow
  • Suffering arises from selfishness rooted in the “self” idea
  • Freedom comes when attachment/self desire fall away
  • Seeing reality/truth “as it is” frees the mind from conflict
  • No blind dependence on authority: one must realize directly (linked to the Buddha’s advice not to accept teachings on authority)
  • Emphasis on mindfulness/awareness (Sattipaṭṭhāna), impermanence, and the correct attitude toward discipline

Rahula concludes that Krishnamurti is not formally a Buddhist, but there is “hardly any conflict” between their teachings.

2) Central debate: knowledge and liberation vs freedom from knowledge

Krishnamurti challenges Rahula’s implied use of scriptures as a “supporting boat.”

Rahula’s position: knowledge can be conditionally useful

  • Knowledge is like a boat for crossing a river: use it if needed, but leave it once the crossing is complete.

Krishnamurti’s counter: knowledge may strengthen the self

  • Krishnamurti argues that accumulating information/experience often strengthens the self.
  • The “weight” of knowledge can burden and cloud perception.

The sharpened question

If truth requires a mind free of knowledge, Krishnamurti asks why accumulate knowledge first. He presses whether “progress through learning” can become a subtle psychological trap.

3) Progress vs revolution: time-bound development is questioned

The dialogue shifts to whether psychological change is a gradual evolutionary process or a “revolution” that happens without time.

Krishnamurti’s critique

  • Transferring biological evolution into psychology leads to belief that inward transformation will occur step-by-step (“I will be better… eventually blossom”).
  • He insists there is “no progress” in this sense: psychological advancement based on time and becoming rests on untruth.

Partial alignment: Schloegl and Bohm

  • Dr. Schloegl and Dr. Bohm partially agree with the critique that humanity hasn’t truly progressed inwardly, even if technology/hygiene improved.

Practical concern remains

Even if liberation can occur without a “next step,” the question persists: how does one see freedom from conditioning?

Krishnamurti’s repeated answer is essentially:

  • It is not achieved by method, because method implies time and thus conditioning.
  • Liberation is seeing immediately that the mind is conditioned—rather than building toward a future state.

4) Practice, achievement, and the fascination of “conventional freedom”

Giddu Narayan adds a psychological observation:

  • Knowledge and practice can produce conventional clarity and a sense of achievement that becomes attractive.
  • The experienced practitioner may be less able to see directly than a beginner.
  • Achievement can become attachment, keeping the mind inside the same system it wants to escape.

This reinforces the theme that liberation is not another “attainment” story.

5) Duality, opposites, and why “improvement” may reproduce the problem

Later, Krishnamurti critiques the framework of opposites and ideals:

  • Treating “good vs bad” or “violence vs nonviolence” as dual opposites is described as a conceptual invention.
  • He argues that “non-violence” as an ideal-image is not the same as responding to actual violence.
  • Dealing with violence requires confronting the fact without waiting for an ideal state in time.

The directness emphasized

  • Look directly at the fact (e.g., “I am violent,” “I am greedy”) rather than escaping to a “non-fact” (idealized non-greed, non-violence, future goodness).

Why moral effort can become a loop

  • Moral effort can recreate its own structure of self and contradiction.
  • “Anything born out of its opposite contains the opposite.”

6) Turning from analysis to “seeing the fact” without the word/ideal

The closing movement becomes more concrete:

  • Krishnamurti suggests that even the word/condemnatory label (e.g., “greed”) carries centuries of conditioning and memory.
  • The key becomes whether the mind can observe greed without the word, past remembrance, and traditional associations.

Liberation is framed as:

  • direct perception of the fact in the present
  • not something attained through technique, training, or “how-to” instruction.

The session ends with participants deciding to continue later, after discussing “seeing the fact” more deeply.

Presenters / Contributors

  • J. Krishnamurti (Krishnaji)
  • Dr. Walpola Rahula
  • Giddu Narayan
  • Dr. Irmgard Schloegl
  • Dr. David Bohm

Original video