The Core of the Teachings :: Truth is a pathless land

Krishnamurti often said that the word is not the thing, the description is not the described. He often said that what he describes is what is there to be observed, and that he is merely using words to point this out.

Krishnamurti also said that the intellect is partial, and so can only discover things partially. Whereas observation has the potential for insight, which is not partial.

So the intellect has its place, in analysing, describing, using logic, etc, but observation is primary, according to Krishnamurti.

Introspection on the other hand - in the way that Krishnamurti used the word - has to do with self-improvement, a form of observation in which the motive is to transform the observed, rather than merely to observe without choice, without motive. This is why Krishnamurti made a distinction between awareness (or observation) and introspection.


You are using intellect as an instrument of analysis… The intellect is partial, is a fragment of the total. You hope to find the cause… through a fragmentary thing called the intellect… So when you begin to enquire into the cause through the intellect, your answer will be partial, because your intellect is partial, and therefore, that is not the instrument…

Up to now we have used the intellect… and the intellect is a fragment of the total. Man is not just his intellect. There is all his nervous organism, the emotions - the whole structure - and you take one part of it and try to use that one part to find the cause. When you examine through a partial instrument, your understanding will always be partial and therefore incomplete.

The intellect is satisfied with theories and explanations, but intelligence is not.

Has the intellect the capacity to examine or does it examine only partially? I see the truth of that, not as a conclusion, not as an opinion, but the fact that the intellect being partial can examine only partially and therefore I no longer use the intellect.

Introspection begins when there is the desire to change the self. I introspect myself in order to transform, modify, change myself into something. That is why we look into ourselves. I am unhappy and I look into myself to find the cause of unhappiness. To introspect is to look into oneself, to change oneself, to modify oneself according to environmental and religious demands. What happens in that process? In that process there is condemnation. I do not like this and I must become that. I am greedy and I must change to be non-greedy. I am angry and I must become peaceful. By that strife you begin to modify. But the effort becomes tyrannic, does it not? This introspection leads nowhere. Have you tried to become introspective? Is there not a continuity in introspection and therefore a bondage? Every experience is translated according to the pattern of the self, which is always examining, translating, interpreting, putting away things which it does not like and accepting things which it wants. So, introspection is a constant struggle to change what is, whereas awareness is the recognition of what is and therefore the understanding of what is. You cannot recognize or understand something when you condemn it. You can understand only when you are observant, when you are not dissecting or pulling apart to see what is.

1 Like

That’s helpful, thanks. What do you think ‘direct observation’ means that isn’t fully addressed in simply ‘observation’? What is the directness?

Regarding analysis I read somewhere (can’t remember the exact source) that the type of analysis Krishnamurti used was a kind of different species than conventional scientific/objective analysis. His analysis was not riddled with bias/conditioning and made sure to consider the whole. Does that ring true for you?

The degree to which thought, or the observer (for Krishnamurti these are synonymous), is absent. In the core teachings statement this is touched on in the 4th paragraph:

he will see the division between the thinker and thought, the observer and the observed, the experiencer and the experience… is an illusion. Then only is there pure observation which is insight without any shadow of the past or of time.

Insight is observation at its most direct.

based primarily on observation, not merely on intellectual analysis.

Per Krishnamurti the directness of observation is directly proportional to the degree to which the perceived observer/observed division dissolves into pure observation. ?

K talked about partial insight, so should one assume that a partial insight is a partial dissolution of the observer/observed illusion?

Has what Krishnamurti said any influence on what reveals itself when all the obstacles are removed ?

Love, Intelligence reveals themselve. Any attempt to implement them are patently not.

I would have to guess, since all obstacles are not removed for me. What do you think?

Common sense says that what-is (the obstacles) are what matter - not what one thinks the obstacles are blocking or obscuring.

It is not important what I think but rather what struck me while watching/listening to ‘Truth versus Reality’. Despite Einstein’s shortcoming, it was apparently abundantly clear that black holes were present in his formula. So Truth revealed itself before it was acknowledged.

Wim, sorry I don’t understand how “Truth revealed itself before it was acknowledged” for black holes (Einstein) relates to “Has what Krishnamurti said any influence on what reveals itself when all the obstacles are removed?”

While Krishnamurti and Bohm have certainly inspired me, quoting one or both of them will not help us understand what is being offered.

If someone understands only a part of the whole it will not affect the whole in its totality.
Einstein apparently understood only a part of the whole and yet the whole was already in his formula.

We will need a fresh perspective even to understand what is offered to us even when if only partially.

What is the meaning (for you) of ‘understanding the whole’? Take our conversation here, for example, what is ‘understanding the whole’ of it?

Let me ask some questions about that!

Are we part of the whole, are we part taking in the whole, or are we outside of it?

Realizing that no one can ever reach the horizon, it is indeed part of the whole. Total understanding is not a rational understanding but rather a participating in that whole happening. Cen you realize that city people have a totally different understanding and view of/from the horizon than people at sea, in the mountains or even in space?.

The horizon reveals itself to those who pay attention to it and yet it is no border.
Similar is all that can be said about total understanding and at the same time it is totally different.

Does this make sence to you?

Are we part of the whole, are we part taking in the whole, or are we outside of it?

I would think it depends on the point of view, right? From a dualistic pov, we are a part of the whole, we take in part of the whole, and stand (somehow) outside of the whole. Non-dualistically we are the whole, take in the whole, and are not outside of it.

Whole and part are different when seen through a dualistic or non-dualistic lens, right?

Here you introduce two obstacles viz. depending and viewpoint.

To continue with the metaphor of the horizon used. It is simultaneously everywhere and nowhere.

It is not a physical thing and becomes that in the mind/brain through attention.
Attention is a driving force to inquire into the correctness or incorrectness of what is observed, right?

1 Like

Jess posted this in the Thought thread, I copied/pasted it here.

There’s no “correctness or incorrectness” in attention - there is only the clarity of choiceless awareness.

Who or what is this “we”?

If the brain awakens to its need for the flame of attention to be a light to itself, there is no you, I, or we, to use this tool - there’s only the brain enlightened, for a change.

So is the flame of attention a “tool”, or is it the illumination needed to dispel the illusion of I, the tool user?

Hello, Inquiry!
Illumination?! Certainly not! We - we people who care about living the right way - have all the homework to do, all the time looking, and yes, being our own light! The right sort of attention comes if you care, not if you sit comfortably waiting for illumination to come! Yoga is just a word but it is also a full discipline which can help you!

The only point you’ve made is exclamation.