So bluntly : I think I know you. You're a reddit philosophy guy. Every post you've said fits the general beats. You're mean, but not smart enough to back it up, though you think you are. — csalisbury

Hmm, well a bit right and a bit wrong. I have never been on reddit. Not realy sure what it is.

I think I can back up most things I say. I mean, say what you like about me, but I do actually offer arguments.

And I am what I said I was - I am someone who cares passionately about the pursuit of truth but who also had once to sit through 2 hours of Krishnamurti spouting nonsense. There are hours and hours of these sessions with him on youtube - you can check them out for yourself. Anyway, I concluded that he had nothing whatsoever to say - no positive thesis, just lots of questions and gnomic utterances (the standard fare of a guru).

Anyway, I am glad you liked the now disappeared Descartes willy joke, which I must say I am quite proud of too. I didn't know I had it in me (as his maid may have said - he really did have an affair with his maid btw). But what's wrong with "philosophy plus barroom"?

I'm not too pretentious and I'm not too the other thing. — csalisbury

Yes, I hope that's true!

Right, I am probably going to get told to shut up as this is a thread for uncritical appreciation of Krishnamurti and not Cartesian filth.

You're really boring, is I guess I what I have left to say. I was trying to find a hook into your post.

And you're really unpleasant. Byee.

The first, and the last thing about him to always bear in mind, is that he has an almost "uncanny" ability to draw you into his way of thinking doing this in a psychological way which is so convincing, because it is pretends to be nothing else than pure philosophical thinking. — Daniel C

But I think Krishnamurti's teaching is very similar to Nāgārjuna albeit not expressed in scholastic terminology. Both Nāgārjuna and Krishnamurti are philosophical sceptics, in the original sense - doubting or denying any kind of methodology, claim or proposition. — Wayfarer

I also think they're quite similar in their approach to philosophy.

In the Bhagavad Gita, which I think offers the first mention of the term "SAMKHYA", it refers to a method of deriving knowledge (possibly wisdom) through application of reason (adherence to pure/strict 'logic'). It is also analogous (in many ways) to the methods of critique which were used by the classical Greek philosophers.
The original idea behind samkhya is to walk a "middle" or "unbiased" path of not identifying with anything but recognising everything and thus forming a relationship through knowledge (wisdom) even without direct or identical personal (physical/sense) experience.
However, Krishnamurti and Nagarjuna have different (not necessarily opposite) initial premises, such that, Krishnamurti begins with the premise that we have an innate bias (us - our identity, ego, self, or the language and idea that expresses or defines such relations) which we must first realise then overcome if we're to achieve the wisdom that comes with that path. While Nagarjuna begins with the premise that we're limited (relative) and therefore to become unbiased we must learn to conceptualize the unbiased which would not be manifest to limited/relative beings such as we (and 'things') are nor would it succcumb to our limited/relative influences, hence a kind of emptiness. That emptiness, being unbiased, is absolute and therefore fundamental to everything, from origin to being an ever-present factor.

I hope the explanation makes it easier to understand Krishnamurti's approach to philosophy.

Well, Nāgārjuna was Buddhist, in fact is sometimes called in Mahāyāna Buddhist traditions 'the second Buddha'. The Bhagavad Gita, marvellous text that it is, is a Hindu epic, and as such, from a different school altogether (although from the perspective of modernity, their similarities are probably much more apparent to us than to them).

I haven't read that exact point made by Nāgārjuna but it does seem in keeping with the 'two truths' teaching of which he was an exponent. And indeed that does open out into the understanding of śūnyatā, which is the main principle of the Buddhist path.

I'm a big fan of spiritual philosophy but, unfortunately, I can't stick to any one school of thought so I tend to mix and mash the teachings as much as they allow.

Philosophy is serious business and especially so in the case of the Krishnamurti thread / threat. But, sometimes, a bit of humour can't do any harm. Therefore, I want to refer you to the second Krishnamurti, if you don't know about him. He is known as U.G. Krishnamurti. There are a number of posts about him on the net. Please read and enjoy!