Commentary 1: The Art of Seeing in “The Awakening of Intelligence”

I recently purchased the book titled, “The Awakening of Intelligence” by J. Krishnamurti. I read through the Contents and decided that reading the entire book was not for me. I highlighted the page numbers of the sections I would read. I found that: 1. Some of the published conversations were similar to what I had already learned or figured out on my own, though they were worded differently. 2. There were other things I agreed with, and 3. Things I found interesting. I highlighted these three instances while I read. With these, I share my personal responses to the conversations, not as an attempt to explain or represent Krishnamurti’s teachings.

One of the sections I chose was from Part V, Three Talks in Madras—specifically the first talk, “The Art of Seeing.”

“Look at the tree, see it completely with the totality of your mind and heart.”

When I look at a tree, I feel it. I look at the outline of the tree and the trunk. I see it whole. I see it connected to the earth as its roots go down, strong. I feel grateful for the tree and give it love because it is beautiful. It, in turn, gives me energy.

“The image that one has built, prevents us from seeing and feeling; feeling being entirely different from sentimentality and emotion… to look at anything completely means with the totality of our mind, of our heart, of our nerves, of our eyes, of our ears.”

When I look at a tree, I feel it. I think I do well with the mind, heart and nerves; it’s empathy, it’s love. I have actually tried to hear the trees as well. I’ve asked them if they feel male or female. I’ve asked the ones in my yard, if you are a family, who is the grandfather, who is the grandmother, etc. Yet, I do not think that’s what they are conveying in their conversation on page 188.

“What you gather out of observing yourself is important… Know how to look. When you look you are not only looking with your eyes but you are also looking with your mind. Like driving a car: you are not only visually aware of the approaching car, but your mind is far ahead watching the bend of the road, the side road, other cars coming and going.”

This is our wonderful body and mind working together. And I have looked at a tree that way. In a way that I know and feel that we are all connected.

“Culture and society have hypnotised you.”

Yes. This is true for everyone. There may be moments or extended periods of time when this is not true, but we fall back into our surroundings.

“We aren’t aware that we are living in a tiny fragment, a corner of a very vast field… We ask ourselves, how can the mind (which is now half asleep in this vast field, because we are only concerned with the little part), how can we become totally aware of this whole thing, become completely sensitive?”

I, personally, do not think that is healthy. We cannot take on the burdens of the entire world by ourselves. Some of us are aware, but we need to compartmentalize because that is what mentally healthy people do. We can choose a few things to make the world a better place, doing our part because we are part of the whole. Just being loving changes the world. Perhaps that is what they are getting at.

“First, see the actual fact of the little corner and what its demands are. Then we can put the question, ‘How can we make the whole field completely sensitive?’ ...When there is total sensitivity of the whole of the mind, then we will act differently; our thinking, feeling, will be wholly of a different dimension. But there is no method.”

Perhaps they are referring to how we are all connected. When you are simply being. That might be the “sensitivity” they mean.

“You have to learn all about the little corner. Then you are free of the burden which makes you insensitive. Soldiers are trained to kill practice day after day, day after day, ruthlessly, so that they have no human feeling left at all. And that is the type of thing which is being done to each one of us every day, all the time, by newspapers, by political leaders, by the gurus, by the Pope, by the bishops, everywhere, all over the world.”

This reminds me of the effects of social media. This, however, was written before social media. It has a lot of truth to it. We are all somewhat brainwashed. I was raised to be a critical thinker. I read a lot and learned a lot. He is specifically critical of religious figures and institutions as part of the conditioning that dulls sensitivity. But I found out on my own, not through learning but through experience, what it means to be saved by grace through faith. Therefore, I believe in something that some others do not. Not because I was raised to believe (although I was), but because I found it on my own as truth. This doesn’t put me in a little corner, because I accept that others are not there (some not there yet) or have found themselves somewhere else—which may be the same thing in a different form. Also, I am aware of the evils in the world but keep hope in humanity and pray for our earth.

“It is you yourself who have to find out, not according to somebody else.”

I agree.

“The moment there is conflict you belong to the isolated corner. Where this is seeing there is no conflict.”

I get that. This reminds me of Eckhart Tolle’s teaching on letting go of ego and having acceptance in the moment.

“Seeing is the act of love.”

I agree. It also reminds me of Gandhi’s view that real seeing and action come from love rather than force or division.

“There is understanding only when the mind is completely quiet, which means when there is no image.”

“Seeing a tree, when you actually see it, there is no division between you and the tree, there is no observer seeing the tree.”

So, this reminds me of James Redfield’s book The Celestine Prophecy. There is a part in the book when a group of people vibrate at such a high frequency that they actually disappear into another dimension. They become invisible to the officials who are chasing them. I, too, have had an experience of being unseen while sitting on a hill, completely full of love for the beauty around me and vibrating at such a high frequency. A person in the yard became confused and asked me where I went. I was there, and then I wasn’t. I didn’t know what to say except that I had been sitting there the whole time.

“To look, look that the space between you and them is non-existent. You can only look that way when there is love.”

This somewhat lines up with the experience I had on the hill. When I was completely full of love for the beauty around me, the usual space between myself and everything else was different. This reminds me of moments when I feel deeply connected to someone or something—like being near and mutually dear to someone or looking at a tree with real care—and the usual sense of distance softens or disappears. Love seems to close that gap. It doesn't mean we're the same, it means we're all part of the whole. Also, I think this can only happen when attention is free of judgment.

“When you have this sense of real observation, real seeing, then that seeing brings with it this extraordinary elimination of time and space which comes about when there is love. You cannot have love without recognising beauty.”

This also makes sense with my experience, but it also reminds me of my life-long interest in time itself. When I was younger I was curious about black holes and worm holes as being timeless. I found light years interesting. And later, I reflected more on time, and love being eternal. The last part, about love without recognizing beauty, reminds me of Redfield's book. In the insights, following beauty leads to flow.

“Our fundamental problem then is… this question of freedom from ‘the little corner.’”

I agree, if everyone could do that it would change the world.

“Where there is pleasure there is pain.”

This is true because the world is made up of positives and negatives, but Christ has overcome the world and he gives good things to all of us. I’m not talking dogma or trying to convince my readers of anything, I am simply commenting on my readings.

The published conversations ends:

Listen to the birds, listen to your wife’s voice, however irritating, beautiful or ugly, listen to it and listen to your own voice however beautiful, ugly or impatient it may be. Then out of this listening you will find that all separation between the observer and the observed comes to an end. Therefore no conflict exists and you observe so carefully that the very observation is discipline; you don’t have to impose discipline. And that is the beauty, Sirs (if you only realise it), that is the beauty of seeing. If you can see, you have nothing else to do, because in that seeing there is all discipline, all virtue, which is attention. And in that seeing there is all beauty, and with beauty there is love. Then when there is love you have nothing more to do. Then where you are, you have heaven; then all seeking comes to an end.

—J. Krishnamurti

I think they are talking about being in the moment and accepting it in the moment. Very similar to Eckhart Tolle. The total sensitivity he speaks of is a radical, undivided observation in which the observer and the observed are not separate. But, I believe in living a balanced life, which is different than that. I try to live in the moment and feel the flow. But I also fall out of it and that’s okay by me. I plan things, I organize my thoughts, I do routines for a healthy body and mind. I am always listening to the birds! And I try to accept everyone for who they are. I am pretty self-aware, even in the moment. At one time I believed that love is always the answer, but there are shades of gray there. There is a time for everything. And there supposedly is no such thing as time.

I leave you with one last quote, from a different book:

“But blessed are your eyes, for they see: and your ears, for they hear.” —Matthew 13:16

As I read the other chosen sections of this book, I may or may not blog about them. Stay tuned.

Love,

Twilight

11/06/26

Update11/07/26

The next two sections I had chosen to read were from Part VI, Four Dialogues in Madra: “Time, Space and the Centre” & “A Fundamental Question.” There were seven other sections I had chosen but changed my mind.

One of the things he spoke of was something I thought about as a child: reality. There were some interesting “discussions.” For instance, he tries to prompt or explain how the centre (our thought, memories, limitations due to culture, etc.) is always seeking wider space but unable to find it through drugs, meditation, etc. He calls it a prison. He doesn’t seem to understand faith [faith is not a concept; it is faith] or our God-given birth rights, such as free will. Anyway, he describes the observance of this centre as consciousness and asks the question, “Is it possible not to have a centre and live in the world?”

The published conversation ends:

If you really saw the tree, without space and time, and therefore without the centre, then when there is no centre and you look at the tree, there is vast space, immeasurable space. But first, one must learn, or watch, or hear how to look... Your simplicity is to put on a loin cloth and travel third class and do so-called meditation, or whatever you do. But this is not simplicity. Simplicity is to look at things as they are—to look. To look at the tree, without the centre.

—J. Krishnamurti

At this point I found him to be arrogant and suicidal. But, I read on to the next section: “A Fundamental Question.” He touches a little on judgment and prejudice. He states, “To live completely, fully, the past must not interfere.” The question is, “Can I live a life in which there is no division at all (sex, God, technology, getting angry)—you follow? A life in which there is no division, no fragments?” If so, how? Not according to method because that’s fragmentation. Then, in his arrogance, he talks about humility. He insults the questioners in this “discussion.” He eventually kind of gets to the point: the moment of silence you experience upon first glimpse of something beautiful. That moment of silence is the answer. But not the how, because you have to experience it on your own without method.

I stopped reading at page 190 because I do not like his personality. I’m going to put this into my DNF pile or donate this book to a charity. Perhaps it will fall into the hands of someone it’s meant to.

I find J. Krishnamurti to be a philosopher, not a spiritualist. I prefer reading spiritualists. For example, I’ve enjoyed reading Deepak Chopra, Eckhart Tolle, and James Redfield. I’m not sure Madame Blavatsky is so much a spiritualist—perhaps more a philosopher—but I enjoyed reading her works, too. Some have called her a mystic.

As for Krishnamurti (1895–1986), it appears he is best understood as a philosopher and public speaker rather than a conventional spiritual leader. Raised within the Theosophical Society and presented for years as the expected “World Teacher,” he publicly dissolved the organization built around him in 1929. In a widely noted speech he stated that truth is a pathless land, rejecting organized paths, creeds, rituals, and any form of spiritual authority—including his own. From that point he traveled and spoke for decades, urging listeners to examine the workings of their own minds instead of following teachers or systems.

His talks and writings explore recurring themes of human life: the nature of thought and consciousness, psychological conditioning, fear, sorrow, relationship, and the possibility of freedom from inner conflict. These subjects place his work within the tradition of philosophical inquiry, and he is frequently described in reference sources as a philosopher or philosophical figure. At the same time, the practical and experiential focus of his message—direct observation of the self, the ending of habitual patterns of thought, and a quality of awareness free from method—has led many to regard him as a spiritual teacher as well.

Krishnamurti himself consistently declined the role of guru or leader. He discouraged discipleship and the formation of any movement centered on his person, insisting that genuine understanding arises only through personal investigation rather than acceptance of another’s authority. The result is a body of work that sits at the intersection of philosophy and spiritual inquiry while remaining deliberately free of institutional structure or hierarchical leadership. And all this makes him seem like a swell guy.

###