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?

jothi

Insight is only for those who work hard. If I'm lazy I won't have any insight; I may pretend to have one. This inner work has to happen all the time: when one is happy, when one is sad, when one is deeply hurt etc..

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

rajaratnam retnajothy wrote:
Does everyone has insight and only many do not understand it

Doesn't it depend on what we mean by "insight"?

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

Insight is possible when thought and thinking are absent--that is, when the brain/mind is quiet.

The brain/mind is not made quiet by saying, "I must be quiet," because that is just another thought--exactly what must be quieted! So what is one to do to bring about quietness? If one can do anything, he has to see, understand fully, that thought is memory, that thought is nothing more than memory and it can never be anything more.

Thought has its place in our lives, and it is as necessary as breathing, but thought is memory of the past; it is always a construct of what once was. As a construct, thought (memory) is not alive and it is not creative. The brain/mind cannot have insight so long as it is occupied, busy, with thinking. Thought must be put aside, then insight is possible.

max

This post was last updated by max greene Thu, 02 Jul 2009.

When our entire organism is engaged and is sensing, insight is a natural phenomena irrespective of thoughts being there.

Awareness of what is

That's exactly it. The entire organism must be engaged and sensing. And that is the case when the organism is not busy with the process of thinking, and thought. Both thinking and insight are natural to the brain/mind. (I like to add "mind" in this manner as there are aspects and functions of the brain still likely to be discovered.)

max

Monic Devi wrote:

Keshni Sahni wrote:
If you have made the starting step right, you will go through many layers of self revelation, which is like an onion peeling off one layer after another. It does take time. Not everything you see is pretty.
Why are we so conditioned by Krishnamurti's words, that we imprison ourselves with the logic and that too at such a superficial level?

At a very early age I questioned the existence of a personal god, purpose of life, etc.I was at the crossroads, had just departed a unhealthy realtionship. I accidentally found K's first book, if I recall the name correctly, Truth and Actuality, in my father's library. That was the only "K " book he had and said I could have it. As I read, it was almost as if someone was talking to me directly. Since than I find changes and perhaps progress as I head up on the ladder of my psycholoigcal evolution..

As you say Keshni, the layers unfold gradually. I think someplaces K speaks of how an insight causes change instanteously. I have yet to cross this path. I think in Buddist teachings, the change is slow and gradual.

I find many of the words people use here are "K's "words, it is an imitation. And sadly, we are unable to perceive and/or understand the actual person behind these words.

Mr. Raja,

Thanks for starting this important discussion on the word "Insight".

This is a most curious and least understood word. I hope there will be an insight on insight at the end of the journey.

Jai Sharma and Max,
I am sorry to disagree with both of you on Insight just being an organism's sensing. It goes beyond that and looks at self and reality and uninfluenced discovery is involved in Insight, as per my understanding Will be glad if you could further explore and contribute on this.

There is a certain beauty associated with conditioning.

Keshni: If you are peeling off slowly like an onion, it is an ad-infinitum process. More you dig more you find. In the end you will have lot more knowledge and that is all. In the sensing you can see it all in one flash and that is insight.

Awareness of what is

Jai,

I have been of the same opinion on onion. No, IMHO, the onion peeling is not infinite . There are only so many peels and there is an ending to it. We are not implying analysis here (ad-infinitum process).

But do you get the flash of insight without homework? My strong answer is no. You have to do your homework, there are no shortcuts.

Kekule struggled to understand the structure of benzene for days, and finally when he gave up and went to sleep, he saw the ring structure in his sleep.

Luck favors a prepared mind. Insight does not come on its own. One has to work hard to keep the door open for the breeze to come in. And the process is the onion peeling or intense attention to all current processes. Then after you are done with all analysis and peeling you take rest or be silent naturally, there may or may not be an insight.

There is a certain beauty associated with conditioning.

This post was last updated by Dappling Light (account deleted) Fri, 03 Jul 2009.

keshni: So how do you intend to prepare your mind to have insight into entire life.

Awareness of what is

Is it possible to "prepare" for insight? Preparation implies thought--which is memory, stored knowledge. Insight is observation and seeing--a different process from recall, or from reading out of a book written on the subject.

But take for example an aeronautical engineer who is having a problem with the design of a wing. The engineer has a background of knowledge with aircraft design. He mulls over his problem with the wing and suddenly the solution strikes him--an insight. Without his background knowledge he might not even have been aware of the problem, to say nothing of the search for a solution.

So can we say that insight requires a background, a past, as a springboard?

max

This post was last updated by max greene Fri, 03 Jul 2009.

Yes, insight requires a background, a past, as a springboard. Now how about our entire life experiences?

Awareness of what is

rajaratnam retnajothy wrote:
Does everyone has insight and only many do not understand it or only a few who see the truth have it?

When I first read this question, I heard K's voice, from somewhere beyond my consciousness, asking:

"What do you mean by insight and why do you want to know?"

(It would seem that I've been hopelessly conditioned into imitating K's responses through reading too many transcripts of his talks)

Linda Thorlakson wrote:

rajaratnam retnajothy wrote:
Does everyone has insight and only many do not understand it or only a few who see the truth have it?

When I first read this question, I heard K's voice, from somewhere beyond my consciousness, asking:

"What do you mean by insight and why do you want to know?"

(It would seem that I've been hopelessly conditioned into imitating K's responses through reading too many transcripts of his talks)

Not "hopelessly", Linda, or you wouldn't have seen through your conditioning.

Incidentally, earlier in this thread I asked "Doesn't it depend on what we mean by insight?" Nobody yet has responded to that question. I suppose it may seem bland and uninteresting. But I think the word has been used by K and Bohm in various places in such a way as to open up quite wide-ranging inquiry into the meaning of the word. Is it wise to simply take such words as having only one meaning? I am not being pedantic. I notice that kinfonet are going to publish something on K's special vocabulary. I look forward to that research and may even have something to contribute .

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

Insight: the power or act of seeing into a situation. In its simplest dictionary definition.

It is interesting how in our discussions (I'm new to Kinfonet but I mean discusion in general) we may ask such questions about insight as above, and then question what we mean by that term, what K meant when he used it etc.

I wonder though, what do we mean by "we", the person asking the question.
The origin of this thread began "Does everyone ha[ve] insight..." but not everyone understands they have it: or only a few have it (sorry to interpret it, hope I have captured your meaning).

It seems obvious that very, very few people are touched by insight. Even in terms of the dictionary definition above, without attaching the mystical values (or non-mystical as it were) that is always the trap when discussing K's insight.

In the end it comes to this: There was an individual with remarkable things to say who has somehow touched one's life. He said several times insight is possible, but only when all conditioning, which is the self, the I, effort and all the other things K listed, is set asside, put away or perhaps anihilated is a better word.

How many people have set asside that in order to see insight, and have they then seen it?
Or have they fooled themselves?

Linda is asking why do we want to know.
Why is it that you ask this question Rajaratnam?

Isn't it interesting? - wanting to describe and have opinions about the unknown - insight - that which cannot be owned or described, because to do so brings it into the known - the limited.

Pity all that energy is not utilized to understand what IS human responsibility - the movement of thought and the havoc it creates when out of place in the psychological.

Seems to be that thought really believes that if only it can describe 'insight' it can control it, fake it and own it.

Whereas in fact - insight cannot even be invited.

Matt K wrote:
Insight: the power or act of seeing into a situation. In its simplest dictionary definition.

According to the above definition, I'd like to share a possible "insight" regarding this particular thread.

The person who posed the initial question seems to have disappeared. So my question, as a result of this possible "insight," is: Why ask a question if you're not gonna stick around to hear the responses???

(in other words . . . WHERE ARE YOU Rajaratnam Retnajothy to clarify what you meant by insight and to relieve those of us who are curious of our curiosity regarding why you asked the question in the first place????)

" . . . earlier in this thread I asked "Doesn't it depend on what we mean by insight?" Nobody yet has responded to that question. I suppose it may seem bland and uninteresting."

No, it isn't uninteresting. I think it's an important question. Here's what I would say on the subject:

Insight requires observation, and for clear insight the observation must not be distorted. Observation is distorted when we are busy thinking of something--anything--because we are being distracted by the act of thinking. We are not giving our full attention to what is being observed. So I would say that insight is observation without distraction. Insight is giving your full attention to the matter at hand.

Usually insight is fleeting because thinking comes into play almost immediately upon looking at a subject. Attention flags and observation becomes distorted and weak. A person reverts back to merely thinking about a subject, and insight is gone.

Can insight be prolonged and made continuous? This question can be re-framed as, "Can we live in a state of observation and insight?" Right now, most of us live in a state of thought and thinking, with observation and "insight" our secondary concern.

max

Insight; when one comes to the teachings with humility of not knowing to understand ( that is to stand under the light) IT may come, one can not know IT.it is not for one or many.

warning : Long post:(

Recently I experimented with listening to some of the videos of K online.
I sat very still with eyes closed and listened intently.
I heard, K, the background sounds one easily becomes aware of when listening to K, birds, aeroplanes people coughing in the audience, etc. I heard also things in the room around me, aircon, people etc. I heard the sounds from outside the building, wind, cars, people, birds etc.
I heard all this as I listened intently to K's words.
At the end of it I was surprised to find perspiration on my brow, that my brow had faintly wrinkled, my eyebrows were raised slightly.
I know that I had worked very hard to listen and that I had been able to sustain attention during the full length of the audio.
It was a period during which I had to concentrate without presiding over what I heard, so for the first time I heard each word and all the movement of the talk.
The self may not have been as randomly active as it usually is. It certainly seemed to be a period of uninterrupted attention.

This I can describe and I can tell it had an effect of calming and quieting the mind which lasted on into the rest of the day. The past played some role in bringing me to try this, I was moved to try it because I had noted in previous times of listening my attention often strayed. Also K's admonishing his audience to listen deeply with 'the inner ear'.

I don?t know if I did that. I don?t know if this was insight. It seemed to take such effort that I feel secure in saying it was not the state K refered to as choice-less awareness in which there is no effort.

The word insight is not insight. What we collectively or individually mean by the word may be beside the point.

I don?t know what insight is, or if it is only for the few or for the many.

I may paraphrase or quote K as saying if a few of us were to change into choice-less awareness in which there is no effort that this would affect the consciousness of humankind, but I don?t know.

Having been raised during his lifetime I sometimes think that I may have been affected by K?s life, and this is perhaps why I am interested in the teachings or him at all.
But I don?t know.
Perhaps I just wish I could become some sort of Bodhisattva-super man?

Is that why we want to know what insight is, to do something about ourselves?
Is it a wrong question?

"Is that why we want to know what insight is, to do something about ourselves?"

When we come upon something, or if something crosses our path, we look at it, and we ought to give whatever it is our full attention. This full attention is true observation--the best we can do. We look at a tree--we give it our full attention. We read a book about that species of tree--we give it our full attention.

I would say that the difference between "insight" and "true observation" is that insight is a fleeting glance (before the distraction of thought) while true observation is a continued attention without distraction.

When we look at something with a motive there is no full attention. We are distracted by the motive. We are distracted by the reaching, perhaps longing, and the desire to attain.

max

Max, sir, without any competition or aggression I would like to ask... you say

"When we come upon something, or if something crosses our path, we look at it, and we ought to give whatever it is our full attention."

First of all it is quite a divided statement. You are I think discussing totally seeing. But we really can only speculate about such a thing can't we? And what value has that?

Or is this mere speculation? Why speculate?

Are we always defining? We pay a certain kind of attention to something. We do it. We are always paying attention to something. But is that anything to do with insight?
Is your or my speculation anything to do with insight?

You see, I feel that there is division in the very questions that we are putting here. I wonder if that is therefore confusing the discussion.

What is insight? Do people receive it? or is there simply insight, not people who have insight, not a kind of attention that is different from other forms of attention. Perhaps it is something that is outside of the definitions we are capable of imagining.

Then what can we talk about?

Max wrote:
Is it possible to "prepare" for insight?

Linda Thorlakson wrote:
When I first read this question, I heard K's voice, from somewhere beyond my consciousness, asking:
"What do you mean by insight and why do you want to know?"

Patricia Hemingway wrote:
Isn't it interesting? - wanting to describe and have opinions about the unknown - insight - that which cannot be owned or described, because to do so brings it into the known - the limited.

Sirs/Madams, Ask but also kindly requesting ont make quick jumps to conclusions but let us carefully examine pros and cons of every conclusion before proceeding or discarding.
I suggest you refer to the concept of "Notional Reference Points" and "Auto pilot" mentioned by Mr. Deepak Gir and Manoj( in other threads.

We have to give thought and attention to K voices as well as "K-like" inner voices but not draw conclusions quickly.......

Jai,

I have not understood your question on entire life insight. We have to explore , takes time. Again you are agreeing with max on past springboard for insight. It will be great if one of you could elaborate the stance for the benefit of the group if you could. Is past really a springboard Or is it the analysis and observation of a problem, both past and now?

There is a certain beauty associated with conditioning.

Insight is when the totality of the moment reveals itself -like- in a dark, cloudy night every thing becomes clear from a flash of lightening.

Now.. to whom this insight is available?... is what seems to be the focus of discussion..

And.. can something be done to facilitate the insight?

hard work, peeling of onion layers, intention/desire... are floated as pre-requisites..

I am wondering how can we explore it?

Being in dark, confused... I wish it could have been different... I know the other one enjoys flashes of heavenly light.

I wish..

Had there been light for me also! I could also have the joy of clear perception!! I just want this darkness to leave my life...

I am groping in the dark, frantically, a way out...

And you say that I need to work hard to have light... I am already working at a frantic pace!!

you say I must analyze and peel away the layers of my self...
I do that... i know what constitutes my ego, who are the actors in my drama, not only for this life... I have done past life regression.. I know about a dozen past lives... But it is an endless story... and I still have no light in sight.. the only light I know about is from the stories I have heard/read about specially privileged people...

I am wondering is light only for special people, those with specific inheritance (genetic), who are lucky or are freaks...

I Am Not This!

Matt K wrote:
Is that why we want to know what insight is, to do something about ourselves? Is it a wrong question?

I have been very reluctant to join in this particular thread because the initial question very much DOES feel like a wrong question to me (only in the way that I am interpreting it, not necessarily in the way that anybody else is interpreting it). I suppose by "wrong" I mean one which, in and of itself, could easily promote misunderstanding rather than encourage understanding.

Yet I read what many of you have written and I want to participate for no other reason than to express my appreciation for your posts (many of which I find to be EXTREMELY insightful as well as capable of enriching my own understanding of K).

I guess I think of insight as that moment when I see beyond the particular and into the whole.

I feel like that is exactly what you were describing, Matt, when you explained how you could not listen intently to the K talk without being aware of everything else that existed within the moment of the listening. Thank you for that post.

Manoj SachDeva wrote:
And you say that I need to work hard to have light... I am already working at a frantic pace!!

While I have difficulty articulating why I am so uncomfortable with the initial question on this thread, I think that Manoj may have done it for me. My perception is that the question implies that insight is something to be sought after and, once found, becomes a permanent condition (rather than something of the moment which can never carry from one moment into the next).

Manoj SachDeva wrote:
I am wondering is light only for special people,

I also perceive the question to be asking this (which is not a question I would feel comfortable attempting to answer . . . I'm not sure why . . . maybe because, through attempting to answer it, I suspect I might be giving it a validity it would not otherwise have).

Manoj SachDeva wrote:
Being in dark, confused... I wish it could have been different... I know the other one enjoys flashes of heavenly light.

Manoj,

If I were in your state of mind, I would only like to end the conflict the word 'insight' creates in me. If others enjoy heavenly light, I would not be deeply concerned about it. My interest will be to end conflict; insight would not matter to me then.

Manoj, I'm not saying you are in conflict; maybe you are speaking for others. I'm just talking about the state of mind.

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

Thank You Ramesh,

Listening to you without choice I realize that the desire for insight is my escape from the fact... and the conflict between fact (confusion) and non-fact (insight) will not come to an end as long as I am running away from the fact.

The state of mind is changed... from seeking ...to.. one with the fact.

I Am Not This!

Matt,

No offense taken by your remarks, of course. What you are saying brings up something important about discussion and inquiry in general.

When we speak from what we see, or from the way we understand something, what we say isn't speculation. It's true that what we say may be completely wrong, off-base or misguided but we are speaking from how it appears to us. Speaking in this way isn't opinion, or "I think," or speculation--it's just how something looks to us. This is the way we should be discussing matters in these forums.

max

Max,

I'm sorry sir I don't understand you.
Do you mean to imply that we must question ourselves and what we see? Implying also that when you say "This is the way we should be discussing matters in these forums." we also should question that.

I suppose my issue is that I find your way of phrasing quite didactic and authoritative. So it seems you are saying: This is what I know insight to be.
It is this sense of certainty that gives me concern.

It is possible we are both saying the same thing, but in different ways.

Sir, in this thread people have actually been giving opinions, "speaking from how it appears to us" as you say, that is their opinion.
You may not like to call it that, but I question why you are presenting "speaking from how it appears to us" as non-speculative.

That we all hold opinions is a fact, but the opinion itself may not be a fact.

I agree people are free to say what they think weather it is right or wrong (whatever that means). It is of course simply their opinion. Why don't we question our opinions? Especially in connection to something like the unknowable.

Please, if you mean that your statements are to be questioned, forgive me my confusion, if however you are implying that there is a sanctity to our opinions then I must respectfully disagree.

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.

Perhaps we could go into the question a bit deeper?

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?

I'll try to put in more misspellings, bad grammar, & poor phrasing into my posts. make'em not so dedactic. Also, I'll get the meanings of words all mixed up. That way I can reach the crowd with what i'm saying. Thanx for the tip!

max