Insight is a key word for those of us interested in Krishnamurti, but it has a great many different meanings for different people, as well as having other meanings in science, in psychology, in child development, etc. So what do we each of us mean by insight?
As I understand it, an insight is a quick perception of the whole of something. To see instantly a situation in its totality: seeing connections between things that were previously regarded as separate and distinct. To perceive the whole situation at one glance.
An example often given is of a scientist who has worked intensely on a mathematical or scientific problem, who then takes a break from the problem - by going for a walk, having a bath, etc - who then suddenly, as though from nowhere, perceives the whole problem and its solution in a single glance. This is sometimes referred to as a eureka moment (heureka means āI have found itā).
Insight is sometimes thought of as a kind of intuitive perception of intelligence, which forms nonverbally in the recesses of oneās mind when all conscious preoccupation with the problem is in abeyance.
Krishnamurti talks about insight as having nothing to do with memory, as coming in a flash, as well as distinguishing between partial insights and total insight. He also talks about the danger of self-deception when it comes to insight.
By sharing a few extracts where Krishnamurti touches on these matters I hope to shed some light on what he called insight, which those who are interested can discuss below.
Insight is like a flash of light. You see with absolute clarity, all the complications, the consequences, the intricaciesā¦ This is pure, clear insight - perception without any shadow of doubtā¦
When there is clear insight into violence, for instance, that very insight banishes all violence. That insight is outside the brain, if one can so put it. It is not of timeā¦ that insight and its action changes the very brain cells. That insight is completeā¦
Where there is an ending to thought and to time there is total insight. Only then can there be the flowering of the brain.
Only then can you have a complete relationship with the mind.
(Krishnamurti to Himself: His Last Journal)
K: The mind has always been seeking security and when that security is threatened it tries to find security in insight, in direct perception.
Q: In the illusion of insight.
K: Yes, but it makes the insight into securityā¦ That is, one day one sees very clearly, one has direct perception, then that fades away and there is confusion. Then again there is a perception and an action, followed by confusion and so on. Is that so? Or is there no further confusion after these deep insights?
Q: Are we saying this perception is whole?
K: Yes, 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 confusionā¦
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 watchfulā¦
You have a deep insight, complete, whole. Someone comes along and says: āLook, you are deceiving yourselfā. Do you instantly say, āNo, I am not deceiving myself because my perception was completeā? Or do you listen and look at it all afresh? It doesnāt mean that you are denying the complete perception, you are again watching if it is real or illusoryā¦
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)
K: We said insight is immediate perception, it has nothing whatever to do with thought - right? - with time. That is clearā¦ that may happen to one, occasionally, and thought takes it over as an experience, remembers it, and goes after it, says, āI must have more of insight.ā Then itās no longer insight. Right? ā¦
We have discussed this, that as long as there is self-centred activity going on, you may have occasional insight into something but that will not bring about a radical illumination of the centre. Thatās allā¦
Why does the centre take over insight. Why, go into it, sir. Why.
Q: Itās automatic, the whole essence of my action is the centre.
K: Yes, and so that it is like a tremendous wave, swallowing a little action which you call insight, for the momentā¦
Professor Wilkins: Iām a bit confused about this insightā¦ If one considers the example of an insight in the case of scientific work, then that insight is followed by thoughts, and one has some consciousness, well, one is conscious of the fact that one was thinking one way before the insight and another way after.
K: Thatās it. What has happened then?
W: You might say youāre in a different state of being.
K: Which is what? Your whole way of thinking has been transformed, with regard to that particular thing.
W: Yes.
K: Right?
W: Yes.
K: Now we want to know if there is such an action as insight which will totally eliminate the self-centred activity, so that my brain, my thinking is entirely different.
W: Fundamental psychological insight.
K: Yes. So that even my brain cells are changedā¦
Is there an insight into the whole psychological movement of the centre, not just parts of it, into the totality of the centre, an insight into it? And therefore, as he pointed out, scientifically you see something and your whole mind has changedā¦ The question is: is there an insight into the whole psychological self-centred activity that will put an end to them?
Q: If there is this insight, it cannot come from the self-centredness.
K: No, it cannot.
Q: Where does it come from?
K: Iāll show youā¦ When there is the realisation the activity has always been from the centre, and the centre cannot possibly reach the other goal, the other side, other dimension, whatever you like to call it, across the riverā¦
So I have come to that point when I realise completely, when the mind realises completely there is nothing you can doā¦ All movement of thought has come to an endā¦
Have I reached that point when I can do nothing? That means psychologically, nothing. You understand what that means? Not a thing. That means, no activity of thought. If Iāve come to that point, actually, Iāve got it, itās finished!
(Seminar 6, Brockwood Park, 1979)
K: I am jealous. Is there an insight which will cover the whole field of jealousy and so end it? ā¦
DB: Right.
K: Is that a fact? Fact, in the sense that X, Y, and Z will never be jealous again. Never!
DB: We have to discuss that, because it is not clear how you could guarantee that.
K: Oh, yes, I will guarantee it!
(Dialogue 3, The Ending of Time)
K: What will make man, a human being, change, deeply, fundamentally, radically? ā¦
Total insight, not partial insight. The artist, the musician, they all have partial insights and therefore they are still time-bound.
Is it possible to have a total insight, which is the ending of the āme,ā because the āmeā is time? Me, my ego, my resistance, my hurts, all that. Can that āmeā end? It is only when that ends that there is total insight.
(Dialogue 4, The Ending of Time)
K: What I am trying to say is that insight is never partial; I am talking of total, not partial, insight.
Q: Krishnaji, could you explain that a little? What do you mean by ānot partialā insight?
K: An artist can have a partial insight. A scientist can have a partial insight. But we are talking about total insight.
Q: You see the artist is also a human being, soā¦
JK: But his capture of insight is partial.
Q: It is directed to some form of art. So you mean that it illuminates a limited area or subject. Is that what you mean by partial insight?
K: Yes.
Q: Then what would be total insight? What would it encompass?
K: The total human activityā¦
This flash of insight enlightens the whole field, which means that ignorance and darkness have been dispelledā¦ When insight takes place, there is the dispelling of that darkness. That is all we are saying. Insight dispels that darknessā¦
DB: So we say that this darkness is really something which is built into the content of thought.
JK: The content is darkness.
DB: Thatās right. Then that light has dispelled that ignorance.
JK: Thatās right. Dispelled the content.
DB: But still we have to be very careful, since we still have content in the usually accepted sense of the word; we know all kinds of things.
JK: Of course.
DB: So we canāt say that the light has dispelled all the content.
JK: It has dispelled the centre of darkness.
DB: Yes, the source, the creator of darkness.
JK: Which is the self, right? It has dispelled the centre of darkness, which is the self.
(Dialogue 6, The Ending of Time)
That insight means the wiping away of all the content of consciousness. Right? Not bit by bit by bit, the totality of it.
(Dialogue 11, The Ending of Time)
[Insight] is instantaneous perception without the perceiver. From this insight, action takes place. From this insight the explanation of any problem is accurate, final and true. There are no regrets, no reactions. It is absolute. There can be no insight without the quality of love. Insight is not an intellectual affair to be argued about. This love is the highest form of sensitivity when all the senses are flowering together. Without this sensitivityā¦ insight is obviously quite impossible.
Insight is holistic. Holistic implies the whole, the whole of the mindā¦ 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.
(The Whole Movement of Life is Learning, Chapter 16)