Add new comment

Krishnamurti clearly did not understand or use the word anarchy in the same way you or I would. No biggie. Anything he appears to be hostile to in those quotes is not aimed at an individual identity, such as anarchist or revolutionary (though there is a conversation with David Bohm where he does talk about the of-the-time-'revolutionaries' and how they wouldn't understand what he and Bohm were talking about because of attachment to identity). In the supplied quotes, K is using a loose net of words that may or may not make sense to his listeners; convey a whiff of what he is pointing at with words. Given that most of his quotes are from dialogues given in non-native-english speaking locales, K very well may be recognizing that there is translation involved to the non-native english speaking folks. He is casting a wide net with words basically listing "things that I think are 'bad' in the world" (that could be its own conversation). Regardless, this thread is about non-anarchists, which you are helping prove that he was not one. Thank you.

On a related but different note, one of the aspects of Krishnamurti's thinking I find most analogous to anarchist theory is Krishnamurti's position on identity. He is quite like Stirner in his conception.