What are some wrong points about J krishnamurti ?

What are some wrong points about J Krishnamurti? ... Jiddu krishnamurti, indian philosopher

That might be the problem. If there are no "points" defined well enough for right or wrong to be applicable. "That's not even wrong."

If there's little ideology or systematic school of thought, then it sounds like a practice. Achieving some destination by conduct or attitude (either private, public, or both), rather than learning, thinking, analysis, arguing.

However, toward the end it sounds like pretty familiar Eastern stuff. Did he really introduce anything novel or unique?

Mind and Consciousness as per J. Krishnamurti

EXCERPTS: He disregarded the stature of being a holy man, sadhu, saviour, and messiah. His simplicity of ideas flowed even through his language. Nothing was too complicated. ... Rene Fouere calls his style simple, adapted to psychological investigation, and free of all mythical or religious reference. He used terms and examples that were not subject to any pre-conceived ideas and prejudices, those that were not standard and boringly repeated in the past.

His language was not meant to be convincing on first reading. It only gave a viewpoint so simple that you would not be persuaded into believing it. Belief just happened. He questioned the most obvious, and prodded into the dodgy subjects of life and the truth. ... it was we, humans, who needed to think and question life from within; and look for answers, not elsewhere, but within ourselves...

The essence of his writings / teachings was not a learning system that had many steps. The idea was to start anywhere and eventually reach the same place (within you, through life). He did not offer a school or cult of any sort. Claude Bragdon wrote that Krishnamurti did not offer something more to life; instead, he was a subtractor of everything that stood between him and his maker, which was life itself. Krishnamurti believed life itself was God, and every action manifested itself with God...

Those who look to Krishnamurti for a new religion or a new philosophy would be disappointed. He does not offer something more, but always something less. The very simplicity of Krishnamurti's teaching confuses our sophisticated minds. His teaching shall seem anarchic and destructive only till the perception dawns that his blows are aimed at our fetters. It is then that we realise that life, unconditioned by personal fears, ambitions, and desires, is not a void but a plenum.

The teachings of Krishnamurti do not have a school or organization, but, as humans with tendencies to categorize and organize, I am drawn to comparing him with Jean Paul Sartre, the father of modern existentialism. Krishnamurti's works also include the space of a human in the social and political scenario. Krishnamurti states so very well that one cannot know of something unless the other is also present...

Krishnamurti does not trust ideals. He states that an ideal is what is not. A human cannot understand an ideal without knowing what the other part of it is. I cannot know what truth is without knowing what is false, and what non-violence is without knowing what is violence. Truth cannot be seen as an object of desirability or attained because of its vastness and context. It cannot be reduced to an intellectual formula for our brains, or eternity, and reduced to a mere objective perspective. One cannot ‘Know’ of something in the present. Even ‘I’ cannot know of its moment during self-enquiry other than the past, as the present shall not be understandable unless it passes into the past. Humans can only learn from their past and not from their present, as the present is this very moment. All introspection is a form of retrospection.

Problems that affect our behaviour cannot be resolved without awakening the creative intelligence or the intuition within us. That will, in turn, fully grasp the circumstance and liberate us from our miseries. It is a fact that all self-consciousness is painful and is absent in the states of ecstasy and fullness. Krishnamurti states that when you are really happy and deeply in love, the ‘I’ is not. Liberation is a state in which all ‘I’ consciousness has ceased, because the duality indispensable to self-consciousness is no more. All our urges for personal aggrandizement, which have cost the world so much blood and tears, are merely a futile evasion of a fact, an endless search for the non-existing security, an absurd refusal to meet face to face, with one's own true condition. It is only in the full awareness of oneself that we can put an end to our self-perpetuated torment.

romanticising about their youthful years of adoration for liberating new thought models...pining for the college rebel poet etc...

probably part of a "feel good" self petting exercise
this will become a lot more common as aging people seek to re-affirm their ideological position to justify their self serving desire to change nothing & do nothing different.

... overt secularist response to de-escalating imperial colonialism, etc etc
probably part of a "feel good" self petting exercise
this will become a lot more common as aging people seek to re-affirm their ideological position to justify their self serving desire to change nothing & do nothing different.
Jiddu krishnamurti, indian philosopher
What do you think?

Blah short changes my response a little

Blah blah blah blah I'm smart

is a better representation