Jiddu Krishnamurti’s relationship to other spiritual teachers is best understood through his radical rejection of spiritual authority in every form. From an early association with the Theosophical Society, where he was presented as a “World Teacher,” he moved to a decisive break: dissolving the Order created around him and explicitly renouncing that role. This act was not merely organizational; it expressed a deep conviction that no person, institution, or system can lead another to truth. He consistently held that organized religions and spiritual hierarchies tend to produce dependence, belief, and imitation rather than direct understanding.

Central to his stance was a thorough rejection of the guru–disciple model. Krishnamurti maintained that the very structure of a spiritual authority and a follower is inherently corrupting, because it creates psychological dependence and fear. He famously insisted that “truth is a pathless land,” emphasizing that there is no fixed path, method, or intermediary that can reliably guide one to insight. Even as many regarded him as a spiritual teacher, he refused the identity of guru and discouraged others from treating him as an authority figure, insisting that each individual must discover truth independently.

In relation to other spiritual teachers and traditions, Krishnamurti stood deliberately apart. Although born in India and familiar with various religious ideas, he did not align himself with any tradition, lineage, or school, and he avoided technical religious terminology in favor of ordinary language. He was critical of both Eastern and Western religious institutions and of the veneration of teachers, seeing these as forms of conditioning that can easily become psychological escape. Even comparison between different teachers, in his view, was another mental trap that diverted attention from direct self-knowledge.

When he did engage with others, his preferred mode was dialogue rather than discipleship. Conversations with seekers, monks, or scholars were framed as open inquiry between human beings, not as instruction from a higher authority to a subordinate. He also tended to keep personal friendships distinct from his teaching work and refrained from endorsing or collaborating with other spiritual figures in any formal way. His overall relationship to other teachers was therefore one of principled distance: historically grouped among spiritual figures, yet philosophically defined by a refusal to participate in the very structures that usually bind such figures together.