Krishnamurti & the Art of Awakening
Insights | moderated by Dappling Light (account deleted)

Is insight only for selected few?

Closed_forum

Displaying posts 31 - 60 of 96 in total
Sun, 05 Jul 2009 #31
Thumb_avatar Matt K New Zealand 7 posts in this forum Offline

Yes, that's the ticket!

But seriously though, it is confusing.

I feel wary that there can be a preachy tone in my posts.

Tone is very difficult to get right in online messages.

I want to know what you mean though, Max. I do. I'm not just criticizing, or poking holes for the fun of it.

Back to Top
Sun, 05 Jul 2009 #32
Thumb_original_avatar max greene United States 141 posts in this forum Offline

Matt K wrote:

Yes, that's the ticket!

But seriously though, it is confusing.

I feel wary that there can be a preachy tone in my posts.

Tone is very difficult to get right in online messages.

I want to know what you mean though, Max. I do. I'm not just criticizing, or poking holes for the fun of it.


I say it that way because I see it that way. lol

I don't give a damn who if anyone reads what I'm writing. Wait. I take that back. Why did I write it in the first place. So maybe this like everthing else is just garbage :)

max

This post was last updated by max greene Sun, 05 Jul 2009.

Back to Top
Sun, 05 Jul 2009 #33
Thumb_avatar Matt K New Zealand 7 posts in this forum Offline

Perhaps we're all just assembling garbage in different packages :)

Let's not get too bogged down in it anyway. I mean you no harm.

A fun debate is a good debate.

I must confess though, I do seem to care how my messages are received. I felt a hot rush of agony when I thought you might have been angry with me.

Even online this sort of thing carries a big emotional charge for me.

Back to Top
Sun, 05 Jul 2009 #34
Thumb_avatar edward morrison United Kingdom 7 posts in this forum Offline

Matt K wrote:
Again I return to Linda's question, Why do we ask : Is insight only for the few or for all? Perhaps our stumbling block in this thread has been a communication flaw.

Hi Matt, I think you're right about flaws in communication being a stumbling block. We all make them.
But to address the question which you have highlighted:"is insight only for the few or for all".

Maybe we could begin with Krishnamurti's statement that thought is "mechanical". What he seemed to mean by this is that thought operates from memory which is conditioned by the past. As has been pointed out by David Bohm -who was not trying to contradict K, but to follow the implications of what K said - in this mechanical process there is no inherent reason why the thoughts that arise should be relevant or fitting to the actual situation that evokes them. In short we would be complete robots, incapable even of addressing this question of insight. His point was that the perception of whether or not any particular thoughts are relevant or fitting requires the operation of an energy that is not mechanical, an energy which he and K called 'intelligence'.

At this point I should mention that K and Bohm had discussed this question of 'insight' in 'The Ending of Time' and the word 'intelligence' was also used to refer to 'insight'. Intelligence, as K and Bohm used the word didn't mean IQ but was a short-hand referent to a universal energy which is expressed in the form of insight. Insight, K insisted (and Bohm also wrote about this in a scientific way in his book Wholeness and the Implicate Order) insight is independent of thought but thought is not independent of insight. If thought operates without first being touched b y insight it tends to be mechanical. Or in certain exceptional cases such as Einstein and other great thinkers, with"partial" insight rather than acting with "total insight". This is not my conclusion, it is taken from the phraseology of Krishnamurti.

So this energy, which was variously called 'insight' and 'intelligence' occurred both totally and partially in human beings. It seems clear that what K meant by 'total insight' was a state of seeing into the self, an illumination of a different order to that of the scientist, technician or ordinary person.

It would seem - and I put this for inquiry rather than a theory or even an opinion - that for K 'insight' had a special meaning which relates to transformation, enlightenment or illumination, call it what you may. But he also seemed to agree, when investigating with Bohm - that without some degree of insight- which is an "unconditioned energy" - we would not be able to function very well in the practical everyday world.That there exists insight of of a less elevated kind than K was concerned with may be true. But my point is, and has been as stated earlier in this post, that it the word 'insight' depends just as most words do, on the meaning and significance that is given to them. They are not simply codfish on a slab, they have a penumbra of meanings. Which is why kinfonet are launching a project that looks at the special meanings that K gave to the words he used.

There is a divinity that shapes our ends, rough-hew them as we will

Back to Top
Mon, 06 Jul 2009 #35
Thumb_avatar Zahira Alaskar United States 6 posts in this forum Offline

Is intelligence for a selected few, then? How about good genes for a selected few? Is insight a part of natural selection? Can the homeless on the streets of LA have insight? Would their physical living conditions hamper the opportunities for insight? Can the children in the worn-torn Afghanistan have insight? Doesn't environment play a part in insight? Perhaps, insight is only available to those with the leisure time to receive it, when one is not scampering for food, shelter or safety. Yes, perhaps insight is for only a selected few and not the majority of human life on this planet.

Back to Top
Mon, 06 Jul 2009 #36
Thumb_avatar Matt K New Zealand 7 posts in this forum Offline

Interesting project, Edward.

What springs to mind of course is the phrase "The word is not the thing" which comes up often in K's discussions.
Coincidentally I was just looking at the first talk in the book "Exploration into Insight" where the question is put : what is the relationship between the words of K (the teaching) and the actual process of self-knowing.

It seems that this is a very subtle area.

One in which it is necessary to question what is experience, what is shared meaning.

Each one of us may have experienced something like the phenomena you list in your post above, either the partial or perhaps the total insight. Can we describe it?
Or is it an experience we describe? A memory of a bizarre or peculiar perception or mental state. what happens if we hold up that memory or description as "insight".

I'm not saying we should not describe it. Or we should.

I suppose I want to know, not weather insight is personal or non-personal, but what is personal, what is this person. Is there a perception of that?

I hope the project comes to fruition.

Back to Top
Mon, 06 Jul 2009 #37
Thumb_deleted_user_med Dappling Light India 99 posts in this forum ACCOUNT DELETED

Dear All,

We are facing conflicting situations in this forum. When you see dog poop on the road, you do not bathe in it to understand it. That is Not awareness. One has to be aware of it from a distance and take an alternative route. I am afraid we are not understanding Insight.

In my opinion one should not restrict oneself to the question "Is insight only for a selected few?". As Linda clearly pointed out, the starting step here is wrong. All dimensions of the topic 'Insight' need to be examined, rather than start with a wrong question.
That also needs to be discussed if one is at all serious.
Thanks.
Moderator.

There is a certain beauty associated with conditioning.

Back to Top
Mon, 06 Jul 2009 #38
Thumb_avatar Manoj SachDeva India 24 posts in this forum Offline

Hi All,

I suppose, here in this thread the implied of insight is that factor that can help us to directly see the conflict creating mind activity and that perception stops brain from going in the direction of conflict and fragmentation...

partial insight of scientist, artist etc is not the focus. That is what I see in between the lines of the group concern. The intelligence to discern whether the current thought is relevant to the present context will probably fall in the same group.

Insight will be to negate all those pseudo contexts that are raised by memory as an escape from what really matters, the what is.

Then, the question of who can have the insight/intelligence seems to have kind of the implicit - do I qualify or not? That may be the security ploy of the brain to say that I don't have the genetic makeup etc to qualify for the insight, so better I continue with my ways. No sense in wasting time for the impossible.

The concern that Zahira raises about the environment.... unless the brain has the physical security of food, shelter etc... it will not function sanely.

so... it feels that more appropriate issue will be to explore what is keeping me in the same old, repetitive, fragmentary pattern rather than discussing what is insight and who can have it..

I Am Not This!

Back to Top
Mon, 06 Jul 2009 #39
Thumb_deleted_user_med Randal Shacklett United States 100 posts in this forum ACCOUNT DELETED

rajaratnam retnajothy wrote:

Does everyone has insight and only many do not understand it or only a few who see the truth have it?The other question is the insight is only for the egoless being?I feel there can be no answer to this and one has to see it for himself.Can we discuss about this?


Nice Mystry, I like this accent. ;o)

Back to Top
Mon, 06 Jul 2009 #40
Thumb_deleted_user_med Randal Shacklett United States 100 posts in this forum ACCOUNT DELETED

Zahira Alaskar wrote:

Is intelligence for a selected few, then? How about good genes for a selected few? Is insight a part of natural selection? Can the homeless on the streets of LA have insight? Would their physical living conditions hamper the opportunities for insight? Can the children in the worn-torn Afghanistan have insight? Doesn't environment play a part in insight? Perhaps, insight is only available to those with the leisure time to receive it, when one is not scampering for food, shelter or safety. Yes, perhaps insight is for only a selected few and not the majority of human life on this planet.


It seems we have a serious questioner here. Those are some very interesting questions. They certainly put a damper on the "we're all having insights" crowd, that's for sure.
My only other comment would be, that if, in my homlessness, or violent surroundings, I don't escape my situation(by thinking god works in mysterious ways, etc.)maybe insight can come. But if I am addicted to my leasure/wealth, then the escape comes often and more intensly and lessens my "ability to receive" insight/love. Maybe, who knows? ;o)

Back to Top
Mon, 06 Jul 2009 #41
Thumb_jan09_012 Peter Stephens Australia 35 posts in this forum Offline

rajaratnam retnajothy wrote:

Does everyone has insight and only many do not understand it or only a few who see the truth have it?The other question is the insight is only for the egoless being?I feel there can be no answer to this and one has to see it for himself.Can we discuss about this?


I 'd say the main point is to be aware of your own thinking, ideas, attitudes, beliefs, with a view to understanding all of it comprehensively, and intelligently. To see your own prejudice, totally; is it possible? Someone was talking about insight for the poor, the wretched, the underprivileged. Do you see how we make the world into the ideal, and its lack? To approach the question in terms of the ideal is not insight. What is very instructive is to see the habit of thinking and the idealising process, and how it affects the outcomes of thinking.

Back to Top
Mon, 06 Jul 2009 #42
Thumb_original_avatar max greene United States 141 posts in this forum Offline

"In my opinion one should not restrict oneself to the question "Is insight only for a selected few?"

What good are "opinions"? What somebody thinks? After we get everybody's "opinion," are we going to take a vote?

We talk about "insight." We discuss it at great length. Why don't we look into ourselves and see for ourselves what insight is? We don't do this because we don't have insight. So let's discuss it, instead.

max

This post was last updated by max greene Mon, 06 Jul 2009.

Back to Top
Tue, 07 Jul 2009 #43
Thumb_copy_of_image0065 Ramesh G India 40 posts in this forum Offline

Someone has hurt me. I'm pained. I want to get rid of the hurt or hit back at the one who hurt me. I live from the frozen experience in my mind. What possible insight can I get in this situation? Is the word much more bigger? Am I using it in a limited sense? Is having an insight into my hurt different from enlightenment experience?

Freedom from the known is Attention in the Unknown: Krishnamurti J

Back to Top
Tue, 07 Jul 2009 #44
Thumb_avatar Manoj SachDeva India 24 posts in this forum Offline

Manoj SachDeva wrote:

Hi All,

I suppose, here in this thread the implied of insight is that factor that can help us to directly see the conflict creating mind activity and that perception stops brain from going in the direction of conflict and fragmentation...

partial insight of scientist, artist etc is not the focus. That is what I see in between the lines of the group concern. The intelligence to discern whether the current thought is relevant to the present context will probably fall in the same group.

Insight will be to negate all those pseudo contexts that are raised by memory as an escape from what really matters, the what is.

Then, the question of who can have the insight/intelligence seems to have kind of the implicit - do I qualify or not? That may be the security ploy of the brain to say that I don't have the genetic makeup etc to qualify for the insight, so better I continue with my ways. No sense in wasting time for the impossible.

The concern that Zahira raises about the environment.... unless the brain has the physical security of food, shelter etc... it will not function sanely.

so... it feels that more appropriate issue will be to explore what is keeping me in the same old, repetitive, fragmentary pattern rather than discussing what is insight and who can have it..

**Are we looking for some mystical.. supernatural... insight**?

I Am Not This!

Back to Top
Tue, 07 Jul 2009 #45
Thumb_deleted_user_med Dappling Light India 99 posts in this forum ACCOUNT DELETED

max greene wrote:
What good are "opinions"? What somebody thinks? After we get everybody's "opinion," are we going to take a vote?

Max I understand your anger on opinions. But I have to elaborate the scope of this discussion as a moderator.

I do not want to start too many threads on similar issues, to avoid clutter, hence requesting all to use this thread to discuss all of insight rather than just the question on insight posed by Raja.

Thanks.

There is a certain beauty associated with conditioning.

Back to Top
Tue, 07 Jul 2009 #46
Thumb_jan09_012 Peter Stephens Australia 35 posts in this forum Offline

Keshni Sahni wrote:

max greene wrote:
What good are "opinions"? What somebody thinks? After we get everybody's "opinion," are we going to take a vote?

Max I understand your anger on opinions. But I have to elaborate the scope of this discussion as a moderator.

I do not want to start too many threads on similar issues, to avoid clutter, hence requesting all to use this thread to discuss all of insight rather than just the question on insight posed by Raja.

Thanks.


What is the point of the Forum structure which has separate Topics? This matter is not a problem. You should delete the Topics you don't want. Telling the contributor not to follow the Topic is crazy.

Back to Top
Tue, 07 Jul 2009 #47
Thumb_deleted_user_med Dappling Light India 99 posts in this forum ACCOUNT DELETED

Peter, I think I have been misunderstood. I never said do not follow the topic. Do as you please.

Max and Peter and Manoj to some extent seem to be in conflict with me on moderation of this topic.

I would not want to interfere or digress from this very important topic either. I am withdrawing my comments. Do as you please, follow what is right according to you. You do not have to accept any of my suggestions. It is there, it is upto you to accept or reject. I will not delete any posts just because they do not conform or comply to my philosophy or thinking. Kindly continue your discussions as you like, free from all fear of moderation/moderator.

There is a certain beauty associated with conditioning.

Back to Top
Tue, 07 Jul 2009 #48
Thumb_original_avatar max greene United States 141 posts in this forum Offline

Right on, Ramesh. One more missed opportunity.

max

This post was last updated by max greene Tue, 07 Jul 2009.

Back to Top
Tue, 07 Jul 2009 #49
Thumb_copy_of_image0065 Ramesh G India 40 posts in this forum Offline

Hi Max,

Missed opportunity? What's it?

Freedom from the known is Attention in the Unknown: Krishnamurti J

Back to Top
Tue, 07 Jul 2009 #50
Thumb_original_avatar max greene United States 141 posts in this forum Offline

Keshni,

Please excuse the offensive remarks in my last post. I shouldn't have sent the post. In fact, I should have known better than to think it.

This topic, "Is insight only for the selected few?" is important. Please don't lose patience with everybody.

My view is that "insight" is nothing more than a fleeting, brief flash of clear observation. So what is "observation"? Observation is something that everyone does, and does quite easily, and that is, observation is just looking, sensing, being aware of one's surroundings.

But there is a vast difference between "observation" and "clear observation." Clear observation is possible only when the intervening Self, the psychological "I," is missing. For most of us, this Self is center stage almost constantly, and only in brief moments is it missing. These "brief moments" when clear observation is possible we call "insight."

max

Back to Top
Tue, 07 Jul 2009 #51
Thumb_original_avatar max greene United States 141 posts in this forum Offline

Matt,

You asked, "Do we ask: Is it possible for all human beings, who are so contradictory, fragmented, opinionated etc to fundamentally mutate the whole structure of self-centred-ness and negate that self-centred state?"

This is a fundamental question, maybe THE fundamental question. You are asking, is it possible to be free of the Self, the psychological "I." This is not the forum for this topic, unfortunately. Maybe somewhere along the line, in another topic. . .?

max

Back to Top
Tue, 07 Jul 2009 #52
Thumb_avatar Manoj SachDeva India 24 posts in this forum Offline

Hi,

I think that asking - is it possible for all human beings .....
is not appropriate..

i will rather like to put it this way...

is it possible for a human being who is so contradictory, fragmented...

l

I Am Not This!

Back to Top
Tue, 07 Jul 2009 #53
Thumb_stringio nick carter United States 211 posts in this forum ACCOUNT DELETED

I think that the only way the mutation can occur is for the brain to realize the relationship between self-conciousness and cosmic conciousness. I don't know if there is such a thing as cosmic conciousness or Conciousness or whatever you want to call that which is not limited, but I don't see how there can ever be a full realization of what one is, how limited one is, except from a vantage point beyond oneself.

The film The Truman Show illustrates what I'm saying. There is no way Truman could ever have known the truth about himself without finding himself on the other side and seeing his limited world in its relationship with the whole.

Back to Top
Sat, 11 Jul 2009 #54
Thumb_stringio mike christani United States 22 posts in this forum ACCOUNT DELETED

max greene wrote:
My view is that "insight" is nothing more than a fleeting, brief flash of clear observation. So what is "observation"? Observation is something that everyone does, and does quite easily, and that is, observation is just looking, sensing, being aware of one's surroundings.
But there is a vast difference between "observation" and "clear observation." Clear observation is possible only when the intervening Self, the psychological "I," is missing. For most of us, this Self is center stage almost constantly, and only in brief moments is it missing. These "brief moments" when clear observation is possible we call "insight."

I was struck by the lucidity of this description, But it misses one part, at least to me- the observation, insight into, the "within". The brief moments without the me, the active thought, when looking at the inner- I'm not sure if that was meant to be included in Max's statement? That is, do you apply the 'clear observation' to the inner as well as the outer? I just wanted to raise that question.

Back to Top
Sat, 11 Jul 2009 #55
Thumb_stringio nick carter United States 211 posts in this forum ACCOUNT DELETED

If there's nothing there to separate the two, i.e., the observer, there'd be no separation, would there?

Back to Top
Sun, 12 Jul 2009 #56
Thumb_stringio mike christani United States 22 posts in this forum ACCOUNT DELETED

I agree but there is a thinker, an observer, for most of us, right? My question is how inner clear observation comes about...

Back to Top
Sun, 12 Jul 2009 #57
Thumb_avatar Manoj SachDeva India 24 posts in this forum Offline

Awareness of questioner, thinker, observer is the clarity of observation... the observation shows that the thinker, observer is just another thought... not different from the observed... which again is a thought/image.

I Am Not This!

Back to Top
Sun, 12 Jul 2009 #58
Thumb_stringio mike christani United States 22 posts in this forum ACCOUNT DELETED

Do you feel that, Manoj? Just asking...

This post was last updated by mike christani (account deleted) Sun, 12 Jul 2009.

Back to Top
Sun, 12 Jul 2009 #59
Thumb_original_avatar max greene United States 141 posts in this forum Offline

"My question is how inner clear observation comes about..."

If we all knew the answer to this, the world would be a paradise.

But I would say something like this: The brain can remember (think) and it can see something (observe). Almost all of our time is spent thinking--remembering and repeating. Even our "observation," even as we look, is shaded and distorted by the images of the observed that we bring up as thought.

Why is this? Why does thought seem to crowd out everything? It is because thought is important to us. If we didn't feel that thought was necessary and important, we wouldn't spend most of our time thinking--that's the natural way we operate.

Thought is important because we have created the Self, the psychological "I." Most of our thinking is centered around this "I," on its preservation and enhancement. After all, we think of this construct as a reality--it is ourself. If the psychological "I" is fully understood for what it is, thought and the process of thinking take their rightful place in the brain's functioning. Then, when we see something, come across something, we have no axe to grind and we can truly see it, understand it, when we observe.

max

Back to Top
Sun, 12 Jul 2009 #60
Thumb_stringio nick carter United States 211 posts in this forum ACCOUNT DELETED

mike christani wrote:

I agree but there is a thinker, an observer, for most of us, right? My question is how inner clear observation comes about...


Logically, the seeing, the insight would have to be untouched by the seer, the conditioned way of looking, and since it's just content, it would be bypassed. It seems the brain would have to do this at times in order to really learn anything.

Back to Top
Displaying posts 31 - 60 of 96 in total
To quote a portion of this post in your reply, first select the text and then click this "Quote" link.

(N.B. Be sure to insert an empty line between the quoted text and your reply.)