The Art of Looking – Exploring Direct Perception
In this extract, Krishnamurti talks about direct perception; seeing things purely as they are without any preconceived notions such as past knowledge or bias:
“If you’ve ever looked at a flower, what takes place? First, you name the flower. You say it belongs to a certain species. Then you say, “I like it,” or “I don’t like it,” “How beautiful,” “I wish I had it,” and so on. Thought and past knowledge interferes with seeing. What you are seeing is not the flower but the conclusions—the likes and dislikes which you have. Can you look at the flower without the observer? That means to look without the knowledge, the pleasure, the naming, and so on. Then when you look you will see that there is no observer who is looking; then you are directly in communion with that flower.
It’s fairly easy to do that outwardly, but to do it inwardly, with your wife, with your children, with your neighbors, with your boss and all the rest of society—to look, not with the previous insults, information, flattery, but simply to look—then only can there be attention. When there is total attention there is silence. Then you can listen completely to anything: to the song of a bird, to what another says. In that silence you can listen to what is being said, to your own thoughts, demands, fears. You must listen completely, silently. When you do listen totally, that which you are afraid of ceases to be.“
J. Krishnamurti
Public Talk 5
Paris, France 1966
Please share your thoughts
The Immeasurable is dedicated to exploring the essential questions of our existence: who we are and where we are going. The intent is to inspire readers to question assumptions of the mind, offering opportunities to ask deep questions into common life themes which are superficially accepted.
We encourage an investigation into the fabric of reality and our physical and cultural conditioning. In this exploration, we might find a new understanding of time and its relation to our thinking processes. A perception of the interconnectedness within the totality of life might arise in us as our perception expands through these explorations.
Share your thoughts in the comments below.
A central aspect in what Krishnamurti teaches is the connection between the state of mind and the relationship to reality. The way of looking determines the way of experiencing. This poses a problem because through thought, which is probing reality according to the precepts of knowledge, results in a relationship to reality that is represented in the movement of conflict, which itself is understood according to the precepts and implications of thought as an external objective movement, disconnected from the way of looking. The subjective forming of images about reality cannot be separated from the objective forms of the conflict. However, these objective forms are conceived by thought as separate from the subjective movement of looking. They are thereby the object of a collective response to the conflict with the aim of regulating effects of the conflict. Experience becomes something that, on the one hand, is caused by the properties of an external, objective reality, which, on the other hand, should be put in check by subjective capacities. Thus, in this understanding, fear emanates from an external danger, to which it is a matter of developing subjective abilities to relate. It is said that danger, understood as bound to external properties of things, is frightening. And to this structure of understanding the experience thought holds on with the result, which is concentration on changing the external property of things or adapting and improving the subjective abilities in the reaction to these properties. A cycle is formed that progressively moves through different interpretations and attempts. This movement forms the content of collective psychologically motivated communication.
Now, however, Krishnamurti says that the observer is the observed, that fear is escape, that is, that what is psychologically experienced is external expression of the subjective reaction. Now if what is said by this is true, then this has tremendous significance. For with the seeing of this truth the subjective reaction and with it the circular movement induced by thought must come to an end as a completely natural result. Therefore it is problematic to speak of an “art of looking”.
We may say or think we are willing to look, but are we?
Very well done👍👍
Jiddu was the 1st to set me on my path to awakening.. My life has not been the same since. Words cannot express my gratitude and it makes me very happy to see that he is still living through great a many people.😁
Thank you for sharing this wonderful video of his spoken words.
I learned Yogi/Yogini witness, hear, see and feel internally, without an observer. Beautiful arts and creation thus happen spontaneously. Is it happening to me? Witness only is my solution.
thanks for reading
I would rather look and absorb the beauty of the flower in my mind’s scale and feelings before thinking of its name. There are so many flowers around and emergent new designs and discoveries especially for those who patronise special flower sites. I love flowers and hold a strong urge to share them as my basic expressions with others. Thank you for this great piece on flowers.
“The Immeasurable” is an amazing website.
It is so good to see that j.K. is proliferating. 🙂
We link your site to our german language Krishnamurti WP site.
Fortunately many of our german and swiss visitors of j.K. understand english very well. (eg Saanen, CH).
Bravo!
The second you ask “what do you see”, implication of the observer?
Thank you for sending this incredibly beautiful invaluable talk. Thank you for the work you do to make these widely available!
Hente
This idea that ‘looking’ should be without the observer, without past knowledge, is so fundamental to transformation. If we could all do this it would change the world.
If there is no observer than there is only conciousness to witness that wich appears whitin conciousness. The observer is part of that content. Conciousness is no longer experiencing from the observer perspective but from its purest form without judgement.
I’ve been thinking about what it is it to ‘be in communion’ with something? To be looking at something and feeling ‘something’ pass between you. Surely this is what love is. To be living in this state completely must be ecstasy.
Under pressure the observer is always there. Then it’s hard to realize that just awareness is enough to end the observer.
Simple thanks, that is all I can say, of Krishnamurti, and of all of you Frank La Rosa Mazza
I snart 40 år har jeg haft fornøjelsen at læse i Krishnamurtis bøger , ved næsten hvad der står på næste side, men det er på en måde nyt hver gang bogen/bøgerne bliver taget frem og læst i. Det skrevne får en ny betydning.