Facing psychological facts

Kinfonet Discussion
22

I am rather surprised you are taking such a stand on this Dan, seeing as it is so central to what Krishnamurti taught? It is not a matter of opinion, but of using words and terms with their appropriate meaning. If we are saying that insight doesn’t fundamentally change or transform the mind, transform consciousness, then why use such a loaded word as ‘insight’?

Is it only ‘my opinion’ that without a radical transformation in consciousness, consciousness with its contents will continue?

Partial insights do modify our consciousness, dissolve certain contents, and can feel powerful and transformative - and are transformative to that extent. If we didn’t have partial insights from time to time we would never change at all in any meaningful sense.

But partial insights only modify consciousness, which has its continuity as sorrow, pleasure, envy, etc. This is an obvious truth.

So I don’t feel it is ‘my opinion’ that the ending of consciousness, the emptying of its contents, is the radical ending. Only the ending of the continuity of consciousness is radical, fundamental transformation.

And it is clearly this transformation that Krishnamurti talked about all his life, and not a modified continuity of content. Right?

So I feel you are really going off into your own ‘opinion’ in thinking otherwise. Insight in Krishnamurti’s sense of the word clearly means the radical transformation of consciousness, and not anything less.

If a person wishes to conflate their own partial insight with the kind of radical insight that Krishnamurti talked about all his life, then I feel they are simply misusing the word ‘insight’. That’s all.

1 Like
23

Moreover, I feel there is a certain degree of vanity in claiming to have had radical insight when one has not. I feel it is a subtle way of bolstering one’s pride, one’s ego, which gains a certain inflation from such bolstering. Why do this when one can simply move with one’s partial insights, being creatively exploratory in one’s insights, yet without claiming to have undergone radical revolution, etc (i.e. total insight)?

There is nothing derogatory about having partial insights. It shows that one’s brain is active, creative, moving. But to claim to have total insight when this is not a fact I find baffling.

Personally, I have never understood this need to claim oneself to be in possession of spiritual truths which are not in fact truths! But I am aware that this is quite accepted in many so-called spiritual circles (including in the ‘K world’, though it is usually less acceptable there).

To claim to be transformed when one is not transformed is, I feel, simply a form of self deception.

1 Like
24

K.: Freedom from sorrow, from grief, from loneliness, is essential for insight to be. Insight is not a continuous movement. It cannot be captured by thought. Insight is supreme intelligence and this intelligence employs thought as a tool. Insight is intelligence with its beauty and love. They are really inseparable: they are actually one. This is the whole which is the most sacred. (end of quote)

Insight Is Holistic

From Krishnamurti’s Book THE WHOLE MOVEMENT OF LIFE IS LEARNING

That seems contradictory to what you say . And if I may, what is this total insight you talk about ? Why talk about partial or total insight at all ? Of what use is it?

K.: We were saying yesterday, when we were walking, if we could put aside height, the vertical and the horizontal altogether, and observe this fact that wherever we are, at whatever level of conditioning, of being, the perceiving of truth, of the fact, is at that moment the last step.

2 Likes
25

Thank you for posting this, Richard. I’m going to suggest it as a topic for one of our future Observations Dialogue. It is beautiful!

2 Likes
26

One just gets entangled in Krishnamurti’s words if one looks for their particular - maybe ‘visual’- meaning instead of what he is really thriving to convey. Speaking of insight as supreme intelligence is what Krishnamurti does in many contexts but it’s only what it is, no more. That is, it is valid at that moment and the scope of living is from moment to moment, it is not at all THAT insight any more!

27

Richard, are you able to use your own words to articulate what you want to say? Sharing Krishnamurti quotations without context is, I feel, a recipe for ambiguity.

The second quotation you share is excerpted from a longer discussion Krishnamurti had (in the book Tradition and Revolution), which - as with many of his discussions in India - is subtle, complex, suggestive. The context for the discussions in that book is the relationship of Krishnamurti’s teachings with the wider religious traditions of Indian society, where they connect and where they diverge. One has to approach it in that spirit.

One thing to note is that Tradition and Revolution has a somewhat unclear foundation because - according to Mary Zimbalist’s biography of Krishnamurti - several of the discussions in this book were not recorded by audio-equipment, so they had to be supplemented by the personal recollections of one or two of the participants: which is a very unsatisfactory situation.

In addition to this you seem to have altered the original question that Krishnamurti was asked, which was:

Questioner P: Yesterday, while you were on a walk, you said the first step is the last step. To understand that statement, I think we should investigate the problem of time and whether there is such a thing as a final state of enlightenment. The confusion arises because our minds are conditioned to think of illumination as the final state. Is understanding or illumination a final state?

So the question is posed in the context of the traditional Indian view that enlightenment or moksha comes at the end of a long period of cultivation, effort, meditation, involving multiple lives, etc. The question of time. And the relationship of this to clear perception of truth:

Krishnamurti: I see; I perceive something that is extraordinary; something that is true. I want to perpetuate that perception; give it a continuity so that perception - action continues throughout my daily life. I think that is where the mistake lies. The mind has seen something true. That is enough… Thought wants to carry on that perception through the daily acts. The mind has seen something very clearly. Leave it there… In the daily movement of life, it does not carry over. The perception has not become knowledge…

[Therefore] Die to the thing that is true. Otherwise it becomes memory, which then becomes thought, and thought says ‘how am I to perpetuate that state?’ … Time enters when, having seen it clearly, having perceived it, there is a carrying over and the applying of it to the next incident.

So in this discussion Krishnamurti is saying not to allow our insights (partial or otherwise!) to become part of our identity, part of our knowledge (which is time). We have to let them go, like beautiful little fish that have swum momentarily into our hands: we cannot hold them. Yet if we die to them then our minds can be fresh for the next moment of seeing, the next moment of fresh perception.

So not to make a big deal out of our insights, such as they may be, not to claim any authority for them, because they have already evaporated like the morning mist.

28

Not as easily as you James. I have not your talent to arfticulate my ideas , opinions and interpretations .

To my view the question remains valid: does enligtenment, the truth, the radical insight you talk about a fix point in time ? You arrive there and it is the end of all troubles ?

You really think that ? That really is your interpretation of the quote?

29

As far as I can see, one may be very sensitive and aware one day, which may result in seeing with great clarity, but this does not in any way mean that you will be sensitive and aware the next day. I understand that there is no permanent state of being sensitive and aware, and that sensitivity and awareness do not carry over from one day to the next or one moment to another.

4 Likes
30

Yes. I think Sean explains it very well in his post. Seeing, clarity, does not carry over to the next day - there is no permanency in seeing. So one has to die to yesterday’s perception and begin anew. The continuation of yesterday’s seeing is in memory only, and will interfere with today’s seeing. So one must, metaphorically, let one’s ‘little fishes’ of insight go free, and not try to hold onto them.

However, a slightly different but related issue is whether there is a fundamental insight at all? That is, from my understanding of Krishnamurti he does seem to propose a fundamental order of insight that radically changes the brain in a fundamental way. This order of insight may be different from the ‘little fishes’ of insight we have been talking about here.

2 Likes
31

This may be correct but at the same time as Sean described we will never know, do we?

32

And what would be this fundamental order of insight that radically changes the brain in a fundamental way, if I may ask.

33

I understand. But is there an insight that the result is a transformation , a revolution of the mind , or the brain, as it is ?

34

As I see it, that could only be surmised by others and most likely objectified as a conclusion by many but not by the person him/herself for him/her it would remain new and fresh and surprised that others do not see it.

3 Likes
35

FYI: You seem to always be in comparison mode. One might think you are motivated by competitive approval–needing to be exemplary. But thanks for you contributions here. One would almost guess you to be a Leo with a very well-aspected Mercury. ( Well-aspected Mercury can enhance one’s communication skills, intellectual pursuits, and ability to absorb and disseminate knowledge. Balanced Mercury: A balanced placement of Mercury in the birth chart suggests that its energy is expressed in a healthy and constructive manner.)

36

Truth (insight) is innocent and cannot be held without a fair trial every moment, so why hold it? Every perception, every moment of truth is the seeing that is the doing, i.e., its effect is all that matters, so holding a memory of the insight is accumulating psychological content instead of losing it.

3 Likes
37

I am a Leo, though I’m not sure where my mercury is! (I think it is in Virgo).

I’m not sure what you mean by “comparison mode”?, but I do want to understand and be clear about what people mean by the words and concepts they use. I admit I can be a bit relentless in this respect. And, while I am on Kinfonet, I want to do my best to understand what Krishnamurti meant by the words he used.

However, maybe I am a little too focussed and relentless in my explorations? - and need to be regularly reminded that the word is not the thing. I don’t want to be oppressive of other people’s freedom of enquiry, so I will try to pay attention to this aspect of my communication (if this is what you mean).

38

I think, Wim, it will be obvious that a fundamental transformation has occurred. I’m not sure we need to make a mystery or a worry out of it.

Are you suggesting that the total ending of sorrow in the mind, the emptying of the contents of consciousness, the ending of the ‘me’, along with the birth of intelligence and compassion, will not clearly manifest in daily life?

The test of total insight is: do I still suffer, am I still confused, am I capable of feeling love and compassion, is there intelligence operating or only thought? etc. I think this will be obvious.

39

I think that to remain with, to perceive, see - which cannot be carried over, but must always be renewed afresh - ‘what is’, in daily life, from moment to moment, is the most significant thing we can do with our days.

40

James, you start with I think and that’s reason not for doubt and not make knowledge or an authority.
Accepting the fact that it it’s still a mystery is not a worry for me.

There is no doubt in my mind that testing is not something the transformed mind is busy with that seems obvious something for the conditioned mind.

1 Like
41

Dear lord Wim, what are you saying?

Are you suggesting that it will not be apparent when the mind undergoes complete transformation? Why are you even bothered with this question? Is it that you have a vested interest in defending the right of a person to deceive themselves into believing they have undergone a transformation when they haven’t? - I assure you that they do not need your permission to deceive themselves. Do you feel you have undergone a transformation? Why is this a question for you?

Whether one uses the expression “I think” is neither here nor there.

If you read Krishnamurti’s comments on the ‘insight’ thread you will see that he encourages people to doubt themselves even if they have had a true insight. The passage is this one:

K: If the perception is complete, whole, then there is no confusion at any time. Or, one may deceive oneself that it is whole and act upon it, which brings confusion…

Now would you say, when there is complete perception - not an illusory perception - there is no further confusion?

Q: It seems reasonable to say that.

K: That means from day to day there is no confusion at all.

Q: Then why did you feel it necessary to look into it?

K: Because I may deceive myself. Therefore it is dangerous ground and I must be alert, I must watch it.

Q: Are we seeing this as an insight now? - that when there is an insight of that kind there is no further confusion? But we may deceive ourselves nevertheless.

K: Yes. Therefore we must be watchful…

You have a deep insight, complete, whole. Someone comes along and says: ‘Look, you are deceiving yourself’. Do you instantly say, ‘No, I am not deceiving myself because my perception was complete’? Or do you listen and look at it all afresh? It doesn’t mean that you are denying the complete perception, you are again watching if it is real or illusory…

One suffers and you see what it does. In observing it, investigating it, opening it up, in the very unrolling of it you have a certain insight. That is all we are saying. That insight may be partial. Therefore one has to be aware that it is partial. Its action is partial and it may appear complete, so watch it.

(Small Group Dialogue Ojai, 24th March, 1977)