Understanding J.K's teachings: 01 Observing

December 28, 2025

It's been some time since I have been reading some of Krishnamurti's work and to be really honest, it has done some profound and meaningful impact on my daily life.

The first book of K that I read was "The Book of Life" - I had found JK from somewhere on the internet. After that I picked up "Freedom from the Known" and I am still reading that one.

Through this notes series, I want to go through some of the discussions and videos of him, trying to understand and look deeper into how his insights and way of thinking might help me bring more clarity and awareness in my daily life.

This is my first time attempting to write something non-technical, but I am going to give this a shot anyways : )

Note: Some of the points I touch upon here can easily be taken out of context if read as conclusions or prescriptions. The discussions and inquiries I'm referring to are probably not at the level of behaviour, morality, or belief, but at the psychological level — how the mind observes, reacts, and creates meaning. Without that context, these notes may sound abstract or even misleading.

Observing Clearly

I will link some recordings below and try to understand and look into observation.

"To observe is the most important thing in life" - J. K
"You can know the name of a bird in all the languages of the world, but when you're finished, you'll know absolutely nothing whatever about the bird... So let's look at the bird and see what it's doing — that's what counts. I learned very early the difference between knowing the name of something and knowing something" - Richard Feynman

So K seems to return again and again to the concept of observation, but not as a technique or as a practice to be mastered over time - rather as something immediate, simple, and strangely difficult.

When K says "To observe is the most important thing in life", I think he does not mean observation in the ordinary sense of collecting facts or forming opinions. He is not talking about analysis, interpretation, or judgment. In fact, he often points out that the moment analysis enters, observation has already ended.

Observation, as K uses the word, is seeing what is — without the interference of the observer. This is where it starts to feel difficult to understand for me.

Normally, when I say "I am observing", there is always a subtle center involved: I am watching, I am judging, I am comparing what I see with what I already know. K questions this entire structure. He asks: Is there observation when the observer is present? Or is the observer itself part of the disturbance?

I notice that most of our seeing is never direct. We look at life through layers: memory, experience, knowledge, conditioning, fear and desire. For example, when I look at say my friend, I am not really seeing him. I am seeing my image of him — formed from past conversations, past arguments, past shared moments. The same applies when I look at myself. I do not see what I am, but what I think I am, or what I want to become.

the observer is the observed. What I call the "observer" is in reality a bundle of memories and reactions, and those memories are exactly what I am trying to observe.

Observation without choice

Another phrase K frequently uses is "choiceless awareness". From what I understand, this does not mean passivity or indifference. It means awareness without preference — without trying to hold on to pleasant experiences or push away unpleasant ones. In my daily life, this is extremely clear when I look closely.

For example: When irritation arises while I'm waiting in traffic, my usual response is to justify it ("This traffic is stupid") or suppress it ("I shouldn't be angry"). I rarely simply observe the irritation as it arises in my body and mind, without naming it, without escaping it.

K suggests that the very act of pure observation brings a kind of intelligence with it. Not intelligence as knowledge, but intelligence as clarity. When anger is fully observed, without resistance or indulgence, it begins to dissolve, not because I did something to it, but most likely because I no longer feed it.

Modern life and the difficulty of seeing

In my daily life, observation is constantly interrupted. I am no saint and as guilty of this as anyone else, but take social media as an example. When I'm doom scrolling, it is not observation. It is reaction: Like, Dislike, Compare, Envy, Judge. There is no space for me to see what is happening inside me as I engage with it. K would probably say that I am not living—I am merely responding.

K is uncompromising here. He also says that "without understanding oneself, no system, method, or ideology can bring clarity and self-understanding does not come through effort, but through observation"

Seeing without naming

One of K's most striking points is about naming. The moment I name something, I stop seeing it. This is why the Feynman quote fits so perfectly here. I know the word "anxiety" but that doesn't mean I know anxiety. I know the word "depression" but that doesn't mean I understand sorrow. The word becomes a shield very quickly, it can give me the illusion of understanding while preventing direct contact.

K often invites the listener to watch a tree, a cloud, or a sunset without naming it. Not "oak", not "beautiful", not "sunset"—just seeing. The same quality of attention, he suggests, can be brought to inner states. When fear arises in me, can I observe it without calling it fear? Without saying: "This is bad", "This will pass", "I shouldn't feel this"?

This kind of observation is not something I can practice mechanically. The moment it becomes a practice for me, it becomes another form of becoming, another goal. And that may be the most challenging part of K's teaching: there is no method.

On Conclusions

K repeatedly points out that a conclusion is the end of inquiry. The moment my mind arrives at a conclusion—"I understand this", "This is how I am", "This is the truth"—it stops observing. What takes over is memory. From that point onward, I am no longer looking at life directly, I am looking through the conclusion.

K does not treat conclusions as neutral or practical tools. He sees them as psychological anchors fixed points the mind clings to for certainty and security.

"A mind that has come to a conclusion is a dead mind."

This is not an exaggeration, in K's language - A "dead" mind is not immoral or stupid, it is simply incapable of discovery. It can repeat, defend, and argue, but it cannot learn.

Why conclusions can be dangerous

According to K, conclusions arise from: fear of uncertainty, desire for psychological safety, the urge to know where one stands. I think I conclude because not knowing feels uncomfortable to me.

For example: I have told myself "I am an anxious person." "People cannot be trusted." "I know myself pretty well." These statements feel stabilizing to me. They give my mind something solid to stand on. But K would say that the moment I conclude, I stop meeting reality as it is. I may have been anxious yesterday, but that doesn't mean I am anxious today—yet the conclusion carries yesterday into today, distorting my perception

Conclusion vs understanding

Krishnamurti makes a sharp distinction between understanding and concluding. Understanding according to him is alive. It moves. It has no final shape. A conclusion is static. It says, "This is it."

K often says that truth is a living thing, not something I can pin down and carry around. The moment I say "I have understood", what I am holding is no longer truth—it is a memory of an insight. That memory may be useful at a practical level, but psychologically it can become a barrier for me and my ability to learn and see things as they are.

Conclusions and the observer

This ties directly into K's idea that the observer is the observed. So when I observe through conclusions, I probably am actually observing through the past. This means I am never in contact with the present. K asks a difficult question:

Can you look at something without concluding what it is?