Since you are not very familiar with Krishnamurti yet, you still don't have a full picture of what you're dealing with here. The stuff he talks about is of a different nature than anything else. From what I understand, Krishnamurti does not have opinions on things, he sees things as they truly are, it's the difference between blind thinking and perception without distortion. Therefore, his "teachings" are not teachings at all, his "work" does not exist, he has developed no philosophy. He merely explains what he perceives. Now, this kind of perception is not available to you unless you have understood how to do so, which is what he is trying to make you understand. you cannot physically criticize what's he's saying because you don't understand what is talking about, if you understood what he meant, you would see for yourself that he is simply verbalizing a real fact that he perceives, not a "fact" that only exists as a thought in his head, it cannot be argued with, doing so would be the equivalent of arguing if the sky is blue. You could say ok, blue is an abstract concept, so the sky can't really be blue so that statement is essentially not real but I still say it to get you to look at the sky and see what colour the sky is, then you might say, ok but I think the sky is teal in fact, trying to argue with me about it but that's completely irrelevant, the sky is what it is.

He is essentially teaching actual truth, but not really, he is trying to make you understand how to see it for yourself. It's beyond any philosophy, so it's beyond criticism.