Just the other day, DanMcD had an insight. He saw that there was no “there” there. You could ask him about it.
No, actually it doesn’t. Insight is not apart of thought, has nothing to do with thought. What is more insight is terminated when you draw a conclusion from it.
I have decided to put this whole quote on from K about insight because it is fascinating.
Second Public Talk in Saanen, July, 1972
Now this constant insight without a formula, without a conclusion which puts an end to that insight, is creative action - have you got it? Please look at it, go into it yourself. It is astonishingly beautiful and interesting, how the mind, which is thought, is absent when you have an insight. You follow?
First of all do you know what it means to have an insight? Do you know what takes place when you have an insight into something? Say for instance, you have an insight into the whole religious organisation, let’s take that for an example. An insight, see what is implied in it, how corrupt it is, how false it is. Now that insight you can only have when the mind is not conditioned, is not attached to any particular form of belief. Right? Now having an insight into the religious structure, then you draw a conclusion from that. Right? When you draw a conclusion you are terminating that insight. Right? You put an end to that insight when you draw a conclusion which you perceive through the insight. Is that clear?
Now look: I must make this very clear so that you understand it. I see very clearly belonging to any political party, which must be nationalistic, run by people who are utterly corrupt, people who are working for themselves in the name of the party, wanting power, position, and all the rest of it, I have an insight into that. Not through book knowledge, not through reading, but actually see it. From that perception I draw a conclusion. Right? I see all politicians, all politics are dreadful. Now when I have drawn a conclusion I have terminated that insight. You follow? So I act from the conclusion not from that insight. Right? So my action from a conclusion is mechanical. You follow this? And being mechanical then I say, ‘How terrible to live mechanically, I want to escape’. I join a community, I become whatever I do, escaping from the mechanical process of living, which is the result of a conclusion which came when I had an insight into something. You get it? You see the sequence of it? So when I act on a conclusion my action must be continuously mechanical, though at the beginning I may have had an insight into it. Right? Now if one doesn’t draw a conclusion at all but only insight then action is non mechanical. Therefore that action is always creative, it is always new, it is always living. So a mind that has insight and doesn’t draw a conclusion and therefore acts, is in the movement of continuous insight, constant insight. Have you got it? Have you understood this? Understand, not verbally but actually you see the truth of this, as you see the truth of a precipice.
Thank you for putting up this Krishnamurti Talk. I appreciate your enthusiasm in sharing this. Are you agreeing with Krishnamurti that “insight is terminated when you draw conclusion from it”?
This is the ‘challenge’ then, as I see it, that when there is an insight into the fact , say, that the observer and the observed are one, the thinker and the thought are one, etc, that there is a ‘staying with’ the insight and an awareness of any conclusions that arise as a result. The awareness of the conclusions as they are formed allows them to be negated and not terminate the ‘seeing’.
1 Like
When there is an insight into the fact that the observer is the observed, the division between the observer and the observed is gone! It’s over. There is no necessity to stay with the insight, is there? Look. If you are a scam artist and I have the insight into the fact that you are crook, that’s it! It’s over. There is no way I can get conned by you again, ever; unless I am a fool. Why the need to stay with my insight - the realization that you are a bad guy? This is so silly.
But you drew a conclusion from the hypothetical insight so the insight is terminated. This is what K pointed out in the insight quote I posted. Dan also had it in his post which you misunderstood, naturally, and made an erroneous response to.
Excuse me, can you prove that mine was a hypothetical insight?
We can see this coming to a “conclusion” in the way we read what someone writes. The words and ideas are giving us a meaning, an inference, and if I see it, and let it resound, without thinking about it verbally, then the original is what it is, and I am aware of this original meaning. When i take the word, idea, sentence, and then think about it as what someone wrote, and I want to comment about what was written, looking at the words, again, from my own perspective, then that is a conclusion.
It doesn’t matter if it’s hypothetical. Try to concentrate. I know it’s difficult for you. Any conclusion terminates the insight. I quote directly from K. Take it or leave I couldn’t care less.
Hi Jack. Thanks for posting this quote which you rightly describe as fascinating. Krishnamurti throws some light here on to how he was able to discover things over and over again as if for the first time. This sense of freshness and newness came over very strongly in his talks and writing. It’s interesting how he points out that drawing a conclusion terminates an insight. I feel that insight is always very communicative whereas mechanical conclusions are the opposite. Sometimes you can be talking to an old friend and the conversation can be alive, creative and new but at other times it can be mechanical and very much in the field of “the known”. Why is this the case?
Let’s say, I am very sure I know how to respond to anything, anyone, in various situations. I have a superior ability to maintain a position, whatever. This is basically what is called ego, isn’t it? I am using a self center and interacting with what I see as other self centers. I always see the outcome from a perspective of a self center, that is, there are various judgements, good or bad, which can be attributed to the other selves, and how I see it for myself.
This was a good post Peter. Thanks. That’s how we relate to the world and to our wife, our child, our neighbors and friends and enemies. Always from the self center. And it’s total limitation…totally conditioned by other self centers…and their beliefs, conclusions, knowledge, desires and fears. thought is responsible for this mess, isn’t it? Thought being totally conditioned and limited?
I have to confess that this point here baffles me. What kind of conclusion K. is talking about?
I can conclude – after having seen that a religious organization is false – that it’s better for me to quit it. Actually, it is something I have done. Is that a conclusion? Or is it the only right action I could take as a consequence of my insight?
I can understand that one must not stop observing one’s own reactions and psychological disturbances without drawing a conclusion because otherwise the observation will stop and I’m back in the realm of thought, of conjecture. But in the case of religious organizations when I have discovered they are false, corrupt and so on, what else is there to discover? I can’t live perpetually in the state of “insight” and insight will inevitably and naturally ends once I’ve seen all there was to be seen.
May it be the case K. chose a wrong example?
My insight is better than your insight. (
This is how we all function. And you are reacting as if the speech was about a personal case of yours. Nobody is doubting about your own insight but you’d do better doubt yourself.
I know it’s confusing and I’m not saying I understand it perfectly myself. I have been reading a book, a dialogue between Krishnamurti and Dr David Bohm. It’s entitled; The Limits of Thought. They talk extensively about insight. Insight is outside of thought. It is based in truth. Thought cannot touch truth but truth can touch thought. It looks like they are saying that when thought tries to interact with insight, by drawing a conclusion, then that insight is terminated because thought has made it a part of it’s conditioning, it’s limited understanding.
I think that it is hard to describe because thought can’t grasp what insight is. Thought is material, this ‘seeing into’ or insight is not. The example that comes to me is that insight is a kind of energy without form, it has no motive, no aim, no direction…like light it illuminates whatever it strikes. It doesn’t ‘accumulate’ whereas that is what thought / knowledge does. Like water flowing ceases to flow when it turns to ice. I think K. is pointing out that living with insight is our possibility. And our freedom. Thought’s conclusions are necessary in the practical world. But in the psyche, they become an impediment to the light of insight which can shine freely and move with ‘what is’.
Thank you for mentioning that book, it’s one of the few I have not read. It’s always very interesting to listen to the dilogues between K. And Bohm because often comes up something new we dont’ find in his talks. I’ve found just now the PDF version of it and in the next days I’ll have a look at it.
Yes, what you say about insight makes sense. Actually just after I had posted my previous post the answer came to my mind. Reality or actuality is always new so we can stay in a continuous state of insight, that is continuously exploring “what is”. The example of religious organizations mislead me because it referred to a single case. While K. was referring to a whole variety of things we can explore or have insight of. I. e. once we had an insight about religion, we can go on and have insight about the fallacy of nationalism and so on.
I understand what you are saying and I tend to agree with it. I’ll admit that I am having some difficulty understanding what K and Bohm are saying about insight.
True, yet it’s the fact that thought’s conclusions are responsible for division which leads to conflict and tremendous suffering which is the point that I think must be emphasized. Seeing/understanding the total mess/chaos that is caused by thought’s conclusions, beliefs, ideals, etc. is the major factor that might lead us to change.