Quoted below is an article posted on BuddhaNet Magazine relating Krishnamurti's philosophy with Buddhism. The writer relates Krishnamurti's view that there is "no "path", no procedures, no organization, and no rules" with Buddhism referring to The Sutra of the Heart.

The writer claimed that this Sutra teaches that "There is ... no path, no wisdom, no attainment..." I haven't read this Sutra, but I have a hard time following anything which states that there is no "Wisdom"! If what the person says is true then it's wisdom and if false then there is wisdom!

Learning from other schools of thought, the critical response for anyone who says " listen to me there is no wisdom" is that what he/she says is meaningless because it fit perfectly with the liar paradox.

At the end of the article, the writer quoting to a Buddist teacher said that the Buddha "compromised" himself by teaching on the two different levels... and that Krishnamurti's view is identical with the higher level of teaching.


To Krishnamurti there is no "path", no procedures, no organization, and no rules that should be laid down by men for other men to follow on the road to enlightenment. As part of the path, Buddhists must observe a very typical, man-made, structure which begins at the top with The Three Precious Ones: the Buddha, the Dharma, and the Sangha. Each of these pillars has subsets of rules associated with it: The Five Skandhas, The Eight Siddhis, etc. Some would have us believe that learning all these articles of faith are necessary for enlightenment.

Much Buddhist literature suggests that in following Buddhism there is a great object that one must attain and that one progresses towards this goal as one takes each step along the path. To Krishnamurti setting a psychological goal and working for progress in any direction will only lead to more confusion and suffering. Any attempts at psychological self-betterment will amount to no more than just one more futile duplication of many similar past efforts, all of which had previously failed.

The typical pattern of human behavior that we always seem to fall into, perhaps by virtue of conditioning, is the "work for a reward" stereotype. One finds a religion and sees something desirable in it which becomes an object of attainment. The next step is to devise a plan to acquire the object, and finally, with great deliberation we set about to carry out that plan with hard, unrelenting work.

Krishnamurti tells us that the "work for a reward" operandi has been tried countless times by homo sapiens, but it has never led us to anything new or different in the area of spiritual enlightenment. What do we make of all this? Buddhist leaders round the world tell us that there are Buddhist goals and a path of hard work and attainment for reaching these goals.

Here again Krishnamurti seems to be more in agreement with the very core of Buddhist teachings than the Buddhists themselves. The Sutra of the Heart of Transcendent Knowledge sounds more like Krishnamurti than does many of the Buddhist teachers: "There is ... no path, no wisdom, no attainment, and no nonattainment ..." Here Krishnamurti is telling us to live up to the precepts of this great Buddhist Sutra. He is not telling us to follow a path, but to under stand that there is no path. He tells this just as bluntly and simply as the Sutra does. There is no apparent sympathy or embellishments for the benefit of those who either fail to understand or for those who have beliefs in goals to which they must continue to cling.


  • 1
    It seems to me that the topic of the question isn't really Krishnamurti's claim, instead the topic is what BuddhaNet says about his claim. And, you're not even really interested in what BuddhaNet says about his claim, instead what you're questioning is what BuddhaNet says about the Heart Sutra. And, you say you haven't read the Heart Sutra. But I think what your question is asking is, "BuddhaNet says that the Heart Sutra says that 'there is no wisdom' ... but if the Heart Sutra says 'there is no wisdom; then surely the Heart Sutra can't be Buddhist?"
    – ChrisW
    Sep 29, 2017 at 23:05
  • @ Christ thanks for summarizing my question, but I'm also interested to know how Krishnamurti's view is seen by Buddhists. if you think BuddhaNet writer is misquoting Krishnamurti or even more so misrepresenting Buddism I would be glad to hear you thought. IMO the first paragraph negating the triple gem is also disturbing, but the writer absorb this a higher teaching?
    – user10552
    Sep 30, 2017 at 6:09
  • 1
    @Epic Heart Sutta isn't mean no path in initial state it is when there's no self, when one being pure after followed path and all things. Heart Suttra - "The Heart of the Perfection of Wisdom".And if Buddha's teaching is lower level then why he enlightened and not krisnamurti? I don't think his philosophy is useful even if higher level cause Buddha spend his whole life with it. Thanks
    – Swapnil
    Sep 30, 2017 at 7:34
  • See also Have any notable Buddhists commented on Krishnamurti's teachings? (there were two Krishnamurtis); I don't know whether Krishnamurti was or is considered (or considered himself) "Buddhist".
    – ChrisW
    Sep 30, 2017 at 9:20
  • People have written about the Heart Sutra too (on Wikipedia and on this site).
    – ChrisW
    Sep 30, 2017 at 9:33

1 Answer 1


The idea there is no path is itself a path, which obviously has a goal. If there was no goal, why did KM teach?

The Buddha's path, properly comprehended, is the abandonment of craving & letting go. This is similar to what KM was attempting to teach but, unlike KM, the Buddha comprehended there is actually a path (patipada) or method (gamini).


You must log in to answer this question.