I hold that doubt is essential for the discovering and the understanding of the Truth…examine yourselves by that and scrutinize the very knowledge which you are supposed to have gained. For I tell you that orthodoxy is set up when the mind and heart are in decay…But when you invite doubt, it is as the rain washes away the dust of tradition, which is the dust of ages, the dust of belief, and leaves you certain of those things which are essential- one-time-messiah turned guru-in-denial J. Krishnamurti
O brave new quantum world!
Krishnamurti was a pretty complex man. Bohm and he had a great falling out, and as I understand it, part of what participated this falling out was an event in which Krishnamurti was very brutal on whether Bohm had really changed at all due to Krishnamurti’s teachings. Personally, I’m more inclined to enjoys Bohm’s philosophical musing than Krishnamurti’s, but I think this is because I’m a scientist. Krishnamurti’s work was more about human truths while Bohm was clearly searching for universal truths. Also Bohm clearly understood the concept of wholeness in a much more fundamental way than Krishnamurti. I think this is because, as a physicist, you have some idea what the parts look like, some deep picture of the physical universe and seeing that the descriptions we have of this picture are of a nonlocal nature gives you an intimate grip on the notion of wholeness.
I give Krishnamurti credit for a few things (1) declining his role as the messiah of the Theosophists in his speach in 1929 and (2) “truth is a pathless land”, and (3) his notions the past can cage your present action. As per (1), it can be said that it took a lot of guts, but that in the end, he lived a pampered life. Can you imagine the psychological impact of being raised a messiah and then rejecting that role? This clearly caused problems in his life which he never resolved and he clearly manipulated people because they still believed he had some special role in the universe. This latter fact infuriated Bohm (and rightly so!) As for (2), it can also be said that while Krishnamurti preached that there is no path towards the truth, I don’t believe that he had any idea what the actual truth might represent. Also his truth seems more a personal human truth than what Bohm was after (although Bohm’s “Thought as a System” is a brilliant attempt by a scientist to come to grips with the human condition.) Krishnamurti was very good at getting you to be introspective and to put blame for problems where it often lies, within your own action, but he himself was often unable to confront his problems (his very passive nature let people trample over him and he was always dismissive of friends he disagreed with.) I think (3) is also a place where he did not fully come to grips with his role in the Thesophical World Teacher program.
Krishnamurti has the problem, I think, that his preachings are that, simply preachings. And the ideals he held up for the world are ideals that even he could not uphold. Like everyone he was flawed. He did however lead an astounding life, offer some interesting clear insights into human nature, and probably merits attention for the large number of people he opened up to the idea that belief systems can be blinding.
In Peat’s biography of Bohm, Krishnamurti comes across as a garden-variety dogmatist who makes no attempt to practice the self-doubt he preaches. (And Peat was trying hard to be sympathetic…)