What is meant by instant action?

If one considers the history of K’s life, it becomes clear that around 1925 there was turbulence within the theosophical circles and developments that were contrary to K’s process. On top of that the death of Nitya in 1925 which seems to have triggered the disengagement from Theosophy which eventually led to THE DISSOLUTION OF THE ORDER OF THE STAR in 1929.

"Then what is insight? It is: to perceive something instantly, which must be true, logical, sane, rational. Insight must act instantly. It is not that one has an insight and does nothing about it. If one has an insight into the whole nature of thinking there is instant action. "

The above fact in conjunction with the QOTD on insight makes me wonder what is meant by instant action?

After his publication on the death of his brother Nitya in the Herald Tribune in January 1926, nothing is known from 1926 even though he was present at the jubilee meeting in Adyar and there was a meeting in Eerde/Ommen in 1926.

Seen this way, instant action seems to have covered a period of about 4 years.

If I am an Atheist, and Thor the god of Thunder comes down and makes his existence undeniably clear to me, I immediately become a Theist. My understanding of the situation immediately changes who I am. The action and the insight happen together and are practically synonyms.

Now for me to find a Viking temple and become a paid up worshipper of the Norse gods, and ensure my place in Valhalla, this might take a few more weeks.

I think that in the dialogues with DB (1975) he mentions something about talking to AB who had invested so much in him, a land … issues to arrange.

I see this ‘instant action’ in relation to K’s statement that “you are nothing (not a thing)”. To have an insight that that is the case would immediately change the relationship between ‘me and myself’. The body is a ‘thing’, thought and feelings are also ‘things’…and I am not, I am not a thing.


As Anon. quoted R. Maharshi saying that the inquiry into that possibility, could ‘trigger’ the revelation (psychological revolution) of the truth that I am not the body nor thought nor feelings etc, leaving the question then: who am I? (What am I?)

That’s not what the man himself reported at the end of the dissolution speach, to refresh your memory, here is the exact text:

“So these are some of the reasons why, after careful consideration for two years, I have made this decision. It is not from a momentary impulse. I have not been persuaded to it by anyone. I am not persuaded in such things. For two years I have been thinking about this, slowly, carefully, patiently, and I have now decided to disband the Order, as I happen to be its Head. You can form other organizations and expect someone else. With that I am not concerned, nor with creating new cages, new decorations for those cages. My only concern is to set man absolutely, unconditionally free.”

Despite now being a Theist - I still wonder whether I should train up some huskies and build a sled in order to venture into the far north to find an authentic Asgardian temple; or whether its better to just join one online - because my wife might get worried.

Our whole being might have changed but we must still deal with the practicalities of life.

The reason that ‘time’ is not the way to this freedom is that up until the instant that it is realized that “you are nothing (not-a-thing)”, the identification with the body, thoughts, feelings etc is intact. Partial insights in time are no insight? But when (if) the actual insight takes place, that I am nothing, the illusion of the connection with ‘things’ is instantly shattered?

Aren’t you psychological thought?

If you read Emily Lutyen’s “Candles in the Sun”, you’ll see that the young Krishnamurti never believed or revered the Theosophical mumbo-jumbo, ritual, or hierarchy. His brother Nitya was even more critical and dismissive of it all.

What attracted Leadbeater to the young K was that he wasn’t as conditioned as others his age; he was empty, vacant, because he didn’t/couldn’t believe anything. The conditioning to believe never “took” with him.

No, this is the real ‘I’, the ‘one’ that is no-thing. The ‘one’ that is “the world”.

So you’re here to help us be as empty and no-thing as you?

Are you sure that comparison of examples contains any validity? Let’s say there were 4 years of confusion and by the end it was gone. Was it a gradual build up bit by bit within the span of time or did it take 4 years to finally see instantly, and as soon as he did the action took place? How can you approach such things like this? I don’t see the use in it, what k said about instant action is simple. There’s no state of limbo, state of decision making or choice in a state of instant action

This is a nice description.
I’ve not read “candles in the light” but am aware of his claim never believed the theosofical approach. Never the less he spoke alike until 1925 as he defined it because they liked to hear it.

Thank you for your take on this.
Since time is not the essential factor it should not matter if action took a split second or 4 years.

Your last sentence make this clear by the state of being!

@WimOpdam No I don’t think you’re understanding me. Instant action is instant. So it’s not that action took 4 years to decide it, but maybe the stumbling upon the perception which triggered the action did. There’s a difference

I didn’t mean that either, why not accept that although the insight is there the action took 4 years to execute?

A state of being cann’t measured by time!

@WimOpdam if what we are saying is even valid to the situation, the action didn’t take any longer to figure out than at the moment of perception which dictates the action. You’re muddling up something simple with your “literal” logic. Don’t look at the outside world, how does instant action originate in the mind? That’s the real question, not whatever deluded way you’re looking at it from

You may conclude whatever you want, it is clear to me that any execution takes time and as such has a begin and an end and the dissolution speach could as wel being the end from such an execution.

1 Like

So really what youre doing is taking two events separated by time and trying to say that disproves K’s point about a mind that sees and acts upon it seeing. So, go back and reread what i said. Are we talking about actions of the past or present? Of our own consciousness or external events? So far youve been talking about the past, which means your whole argument isnt even relevant to the point he tried to get across