J. Krishnamurti
In the spirit of Osho’s insights, the bond between J. Krishnamurti and him transcended mere physical encounters, embodying a profound, wordless communion where two awakened souls recognized each other, resonating in silence and joy, much like the timeless connection of Kabir and Farid, where truth flourishes beyond language.
Explore Depth →Osho
Osho embodies not a figure to be idolized but a mirror reflecting the divine essence within, guiding us to recognize that the sacred is ever-present, responding to our deepest cries and prayers, awakening a profound connection beyond mere doctrines.
Explore Depth →From the Discourses
Where Osho draws this distinction himself — each passage links to the complete discourse.
Question: OSHO, IS J. KRISHNAMURTI ENLIGHTENED? But I said, "Then what is the point? Whether you are for tradition or you are against tradition, either way you are tethered to tradition. When are you going to open your wings and fly? Somebody is sitting on a tree because he loves the tree; somebody else is sitting on the same tree because he hates the tree, and he will not leave the tree unless he destroys it. One goes on watering it, the other goes on destroying it, but both are confined, tethered, chained to the tree." I asked him, "When are you going to open your wings and fly? The sky is there. You have both forgotten the sky. And what has the tree to do with it anyway?" That's why I remembered the incident of my celibate professor and my saying: "I don't even hate her.
Osho, the way you speak of Shri J. Krishnamurti with love and praise, he does not speak of you in the same way. Sometimes it feels as if he is about to say something different, but then he avoids it. As a result, your disciples go with great love to listen to Krishnamurti, but his followers do not come to you with an open heart. Please explain.
What Krishnamurti says is entirely right—one hundred percent right. But Krishnamurti’s way is very narrow. It is completely right, yet it is like a footpath. My way is a great royal road. On my path, Buddha, Krishna, Christ, Moses, Zarathustra, Bodhidharma, Lao Tzu—all are included. So I include Krishnamurti as well; no difficulty arises for me—my house is spacious. Krishnamurti lives in a small room. The room is perfectly fine; nothing is wrong with it. In my large house Krishnamurti’s room fits easily, but my large house cannot be contained in Krishnamurti’s room. Krishnamurti is Hinayanist; I am Mahayanist. Krishnamurti’s boat is a small dinghy—you know, in small villages at most one person sits and rows out to catch a fish. My vessel is big, a great ship—Mahayana. Come aboard from every direction, all kinds of people: those who follow every scripture, every doctrine—there is room for all. That’s why.…
Osho, why does there seem to be so much conflict between the world and God?
It is as if someone were sleeping deeply in this garden. The cuckoo comes and sings, birds are chattering, the sun rises, breezes dance through the trees; but someone is fast asleep. The breezes touch him, the birds’ songs echo at his ears, the sun’s rays play on his face, but he knows nothing. Then someone comes and shakes him awake. His eyes open—the glory of the sun is revealed, the song of the passing breeze is heard, suddenly the cuckoo’s call, the fragrance of flowers. Do you think something new has happened? Everything was already there, just as it is. Only this man has become new—nothing else has changed. The same garden, the same sun, the same flowers, the same birds—everything the same; only a small difference: he was asleep; he is awake. The meaning of “world” is: you are asleep in God. The meaning of “God” is: you…
Osho, sensitive people from the far corners of the world are being drawn to you. Yet it is surprising that your voice does not seem to reach saintly men like Krishnamurti, Vinoba, Jayaprakash, and Kripalani. Why can they not perceive that here in Poona there is a person who holds the medicine for humanity’s fundamental malady?
With Krishnamurti the ease, the benefit, is that your intellect will always remain satisfied. One who once begins to walk with him keeps on walking. No occasion will arise to leave, because the very reason for joining will never be contradicted—Krishnamurti will go on confirming it again and again, a thousand times. His intellectual conviction will become stronger and stronger. But the danger is that he will remain stuck in the intellect and never reach the heart. And you ask about Kripalani? Krishnamurti cannot come to me; there is no need. Krishnamurti is religion embodied. Kripalani also cannot come to me; there is no need—because Kripalani is pure politics; he has nothing to do with religion. Krishnamurti cannot come because he is established in religion; Kripalani cannot come because he has nothing to do with religion. His whole life has gone into politics—setting up moves and counter-moves, arranging pawns! A…
Can you tell us about your connection with j. Krishnamurti?
It is a real mystery. I have loved him since I have known him, and he has been very loving towards me. But we have never met; hence the relationship, the connection is something beyond words. We have not seen each other ever, but yet... perhaps we have been the two persons closest to each other in the whole world. We had a tremendous communion that needs no language, that need not be of physical presence. Once it happened -- just a coincidence -- he was in Bombay. He used to come to Bombay every year to remain there for a few weeks. He had perhaps more followers in Bombay than anywhere else in the world. I came to Bombay. I was just going to New Delhi and I had to wait a few hours. Some friends who had been deeply connected with J. Krishnamurti and who were also connected…
The Synthesis
The Intersection: Both are fierce 20th-century iconoclasts who systematically destroyed religious dogma, gurus, organizational authority, and psychological conditioning.
The Divergence: Krishnamurti was deeply intellectual, austere, and anti-method, arguing that any technique of meditation inherently conditions the mind further. Osho embraced techniques (dynamic, cathartic) as stepping stones for the modern chaotic mind before ultimate silence can happen.
Osho's Synthesis: Osho respected Krishnamurti deeply as an enlightened master but noted his approach was too dry and intellectual for the average person. Osho used devices, jokes, and therapeutic meditations to clean the slate before delivering the pure, technique-less awareness that Krishnamurti demanded from the start.
Osho and Jiddu Krishnamurti agreed on almost everything that matters — freedom cannot be borrowed, truth cannot be organized, the seeker must finally stand alone — and disagreed on nearly everything about how a human being gets there. Krishnamurti dismantled every device; Osho built devices deliberately, to be discarded after use. The synthesis above states the essence; the sections below let Osho make the comparison in his own words, each linked to the full discourse.
Osho's Verdict on Krishnamurti's Enlightenment
Osho never hedged on this: Krishnamurti was enlightened. His critique begins after that acknowledgment — with the question of whether fifty years of anti-method teaching ever transformed a listener.
Question: Osho, is J. Krishnamurti enlightened?— From Personality to Individuality, Chapter 7 →
The One-Sided Love Affair
Osho's disciples noticed that the admiration flowed one way. His response reframes the asymmetry as a difference of function, not of rank.
The way you speak of Shri J. Krishnamurti with love and praise, he does not speak of you in the same way... So do not be angry with Krishnamurti.— Es Dhammo Sanantano, Chapter 99 →
No Master vs Master as Device
Krishnamurti held that following any master forecloses freedom. Osho's counter: the master is a ladder — foolish to worship, more foolish to refuse.
Osho, could you please tell me your opinion about J. Krishnamurti, who is saying that you won't be free and therefore not happy as long as you follow any tradition, religion or master?— I Am That, Chapter 3 →
Talking-to-the-Mind vs Working-on-the-Being
Why did Osho insist on meditation where Krishnamurti offered only attention? A Hindi questioner put it directly: isn't listening to sages like Krishnamurti or you, and reflecting, itself enough?
Reading spiritual and philosophical texts, or listening to sages like Krishnamurti or yourself and then reflecting — is the understanding that arises from these not sufficient for transformation? Then what is the point of sitting for meditation?— Geeta Darshan Vol 13, Chapter 11 →
Frequently Asked
Osho spoke of Krishnamurti with open admiration and affirmed his enlightenment repeatedly; Krishnamurti publicly kept his distance and reportedly disapproved of Osho's methods and style. Osho told his disciples not to resent this — he read it as Krishnamurti being consistent with his own teaching.
Method. Krishnamurti taught that any technique, tradition, or master conditions the mind further, so he offered only direct seeing. Osho held that most people cannot leap without a bridge — so he created meditations, sannyas, and the master-disciple device as temporary scaffolding meant to be dropped. Same summit, opposite slopes.
Osho himself suggested his own approach suits those who need methods and a living context, while Krishnamurti suits the rare listener who can act on pure understanding. Many readers find Krishnamurti clearer after Osho's ground-preparation — and Osho's discourses on Krishnamurti (linked above) are a good bridge between the two.