Agreed.
For some reason I feel the need to state that it is very difficult to separate the psychological state from the experience.
My sitting in front of a fire includes a psychological state - the experience includes matter and consciousness in an intricate and mysterious way that is difficult for this subjective center to put into words and conclusions.
I think this is why @Sean previously (on the ‘pure attention’ thread) brought up the example of image-making in our relationships, because this is where it is both the most problematic but also the most practical (which is actually very relevant to this thread).
I think we all see the problems that image-making creates in relationships, so maybe we could look at this issue in the context of our relationships with other people?
Yes, profoundly, in my opinion. Taking Krishnamurti’s words seriously means taking oneself seriously in a radically different way. It means going from building self-esteem to questioning the sense of self. Am I an actual being, or am I an ongoing improvisation, an illusion?
Another question is whether transformation is moment to moment or whether some sort of transformative event occurs which changes everything.
Only a transformed brain can answer this question, so all this brain can do is speculate. I’m surmising that “the transformative event which changes everything” is the emptying of psychological content, which awakens the brain to silence, choiceless awareness, and direct perception, i.e., the unfolding of the eternal present.
Why not examine thinking? Who does the brain gave so much importance to thinking? This examination can be done by observing your daily activity. For example, when driving observe how capable the brain is in seeing, analyzing and responding. And observe that the ‘self’ is not involved in this process. There is too much information being taken in for thinking to be part of the process. Does your brain appreciate its capabilities, or has it made itself subservient to the ‘self’?
Below is a simple example of a sequence of thoughts when one is consciously thinking:
I am hungry, what can I eat? ##1st thought
I can snack on an apple. ##2nd thought
I can snack on an orange. ##3rd thought
I will have an orange. ##4th thought
<several seconds later…>
Oh there are bananas – I will have a banana. ##5th thought
Did the self/the me decide to have a banana or was this merely a thought that arise and no different from the many thoughts that arise while I am awake? It is obvious that the me is not the thinker of my thoughts and if one is watchful to how thoughts arise, the feelings/sensations are already present before the thought is complete. A thought does not arise then the self decides how it feels about the thought. The brain already knows the decision before the thought has completed which is why the feelings/sensations are already present. If the brain thinks the self/the me is the decision maker (the controller) but there is no self then the brain is in a state of confusion.
This type of examination does not need to be done by thinking. As discussed in another thread (Krishnamurti, insigts, oceans, nudity), solutions to difficult problems arise when one is not consciously trying to solve the problem. The subconscious needs to examine its relationship to the ‘self’; it needs to question the value of thinking.
That’s a brain-twister!
Does your brain appreciate its capabilities, or has it made itself
subservient to the ‘self’?
Deep down, the brain knows it “has it made itself subservient to the self”. But consciously, it is bound to remain where it is until/unless it fully awakens to its dreaming…should that ever happen.
If the brain thinks the self/the me is the decision maker (the controller) but there is no self then the brain is in a state of confusion.
Yes, it seems that the brain is too confused to find clarity.
But if the brain knows what clarity is, it knows that confusion is resisting clarity; that confusion is the fear of clarity. Clarity is what we fear more than anything. When all is clear, what remains? We’ll never know until/unless…
To say something very non-Krishnamurti, there is, for me, a hinterland between a purely intellectual understanding and pure insight - maybe this is what @danmcderm was referring to upthread with the word ‘feeling’?
So when K says something like, ‘thought has absolutely no place whatsoever in perception’, I feel I grasp what he means, even though I rarely see or perceive in such a clear way myself.
So there are statements that Krishnamurti makes that have the ring of truth, even though I cannot presently live them in a deep, fundamental way.
Also, there are things that K says that are simply factual. The world is divided, by nationalism, religion, race, economics, ideology, as well as by the concentration of each person’s life and thought: not only by the egoism of each person (although this is the fundamental factor), but by each person’s specialism, particular personality, interests, career, etc.
In this context K’s question about whether there can be an action that is not limited in this way, whether there can be a global perception, a state of being that is not divided up (by thought, knowledge, ego, etc), is a real, vital, practical question for me (even if I do not have an immediate answer to it).
And yet the answer is clearly: a state of complete openness, complete awareness, total attention - with all one’s senses fully awakened - a full heart, love. The total putting aside of psychological thought.
And yet of course one is limited not just by thought, but by inertia, habit, laziness, a lack of energy, a lack of leisure - as well as by one’s fears, depressions, hopes and desires. All of which keep one wandering around endlessly in samsara (psychological time).
So these are one’s ‘what is’. The actual present.
And so K tells us to give attention to this ordinary present, this unremarkable, non-ideal, unlooked for, undesired present actuality. And remain with it passively, without attempting to change it or alter it in anyway, because it is who and what we are, because the observer is the observed. There can be no escape from ‘what is’ (until/unless it is transformed completely, according to K).
Probably this is why so many people give up Krishnamurti’s teachings, because they find him to be too negative, too pessimistic. People want spiritual goodies: pure awareness, pure silence, pure love - and in K they find someone who challenges them to face themselves as they actually are. To face their limitations, their greed and desire, their fears and hurts, their narrow self-centredness. And not only to face the boring unhappy present facts, but to ponder over, think over, meditate on ‘not-becoming’ (Krishnamurti said this is the real meaning of the word ‘mantra’). To put aside all self-centred activity.
And we generally say to this, no thank you!!
And yet, we know in our unconscious, at the back of our minds, that if we don’t do all this, face all this, then the world will go on as it always has done: somehow we are connected to all the unhappiness and conflict in the world of society - we are responsible for it. And so even though we may feel too lazy or tired or distracted to face ourselves, we know somewhere dimly that we are responsible for the mess of the world. Our mess is the world’s mess.
So K’s teachings always really come back to choiceless or passive awareness for me. The awareness of our own mess. Putting order in the house of one’s own consciousness (which is also the consciousness of the world). Which means the observation of oneself in daily life, the self awareness of oneself in relationship, the attention that one has as one eats and drinks and sleeps and wakes. Living in the unrevolutionary present.
Ordinary mind. Beginner’s mind.
I agree. We are all crazy!
Crazed by incessant thought.
So Douglas, where are we in this discussion? You have said:
At one level this is a simple fact that we all face. We all approach daily life from a background of thoughts, images, preconceptions, conditioning factors. And so our task is to pay attention to this, to be choicelessly aware of this, so that a fresh perception - without the interference of thought - becomes possible.
However, it seems to me that rather than just pay attention, or be choicelessly aware in this way, you also want to establish a fundamental theory or view in which our psychology is hardwired into all perception; or in which the flaws in our biological sense-perceptions are hardwired into our psychology. Which means that you do not admit the possibility of a thought-free, image-free awareness or perception of anything.
This makes me wonder what your understanding of Chan Buddhism, and Zen Buddhism, really is? Because in Chan Buddhism they talk about the essential importance of having a mind, an awareness, that is not cluttered up by concepts and thoughts. They talk about the natural state of the mind as being non-conceptual awareness.
And in Zen Buddhism they talk about Shoshin, ‘beginner’s mind’, which means to approach things as though for the first time, to be willing to let go of received opinions and ideas and perceive the world afresh. Shoshin emphasizes direct, unmediated experience over intellectual understanding.
So are you, as someone who has talked about being influenced by Chan and Zen, rejecting these core Chan and Zen approaches (which share a parallel with Krishnamurti’s approach)?
I am saying 2 things :
That no description of the world, no image of reality, no model of self/suffering is a true reflection of actual reality - and that the adoption of a model that is useful, or the best/most accurate model, might not be sufficient (to cause insight or psychological death)
That complex thought and psychological thought are related to practical thought and biological perception. I reckon that they are on a spectrum, and that it is this moment in our evolutionary history (ie. the advent of humans and their relationship with the world) that has permitted the possibility of Buddhas.
If this is a rejection of K’s teaching or chan buddhism, as a non scholar I cannot tell.
Beginners mind does not mean holding to the best model.
Beyond understanding is action - but I don’t think its action that results from A+B therefore… from intellect and effort.
Awakening is strongly connected to our relationship to experience & thought - and allowing normal awareness to transform that relationship is key.
My question is : is insight always undeniable, spectacular, or can there be transformation via conscious effort to meditate (conscious attention to psychological thought)?
Apologies - I thought you were very familiar with the Chan and Zen approaches, because you have talked about them sometimes before. But it seems you are more influenced by Donald Hoffman (and similar ideas), which is what seems to be creating this sense of disconnect.
In reply to my question to you about whether you reject the possibility of an awareness or perception in which psychological thought, abstract thought, and practical thought are absent, you mention a number of things.
In your first paragraph you say 2 things:
In the second paragraph you say 2 more things:
You then say that a beginner’s mind doesn’t hold to the best model (although beginner’s mind - as I understand it - means holding to no model at all, but involves directly perceiving something as though for the first time), and finish by asking two further questions:
So you have made at least 6 or 7 different points (or 6 or 7 questions) here.
Should I take them one by one and try to answer them all, while at the same time trying to relate them to the original question I was asking?
Which was: Can there be an awareness or perception which is image-free, thought-free?
So where does this leave us Douglas? Are you going to stick to your view that the software of thought necessarily must exist in every moment of awareness or perception, or are you open to the possibility of being aware, having a perception, in which thoughts and images are wholly absent?
For example - going back to @Sean ‘s example - are you open to the possibility of being in an relationship with another person, of seeing/listening to another person, without having or holding onto an image about them?
Another aspect of the question of what it means to go beyond intellectual understanding is encapsulated in the following quotation from Aldous Huxley:
It’s a little embarrassing that after 45 years of research & study, the best advice I can give people is to be a little kinder to each other.
Krishnamurti talks about the importance of having the quality of affection, an affectionate heart; which is not dissimilar (as far as I can tell) from what the Dalai Lama says about the value of being warm-hearted.
In Buddhism this has to do with what they call bodhichitta (which can be translated as an awakened mind/intelligence or awakened heart), as well as metta (Sanskrit maitri), which means friendliness, kindness, goodwill. The feeling of friendly benevolence, warm-heartedness. Karuna (meaning compassion) is a related, though deeper and more general expression of the same quality of mind/heart.
The difference between what Krishnamurti and the Buddhists say about about kindness is of course that for the Buddhists (such as the Dalai Lama, etc) kindness can be practised, cultivated, as a gardener cultivates his/her garden 
.
Whereas for Krishnamurti affection, kindness, spring directly from our awareness of others in relationship, and the quality of the awareness we have, whether our mind is caught up in images or not, etc.
However, putting all this aside, I think most of us would agree that the injunction be kind - as far as injunctions go! - is a worthwhile one to ponder, look at, experiment with, and feel in oneself.
Blimey! I’m having a hard time coming down on either side of this. I wasn’t even sure that that was my thesis - but maybe it is in a way. Can I say I don’t know for now?
I am definite in the view that holding to our experience of any moment, whether relatively thought free or not, is conflict, is confusion.
I don’t understand what you mean by this sentence? Could you express it more simply please? 
If I’m “holding to” an “experience of any moment”, while holding to the belief that I should not hold to anything, I’m confused and conflicted.
I am what I am at this moment, and if it’s confused and conflicted, there’s nothing to do but be aware of confusion and conflict.
I’m talking about resistance, experience based on the past (or what should be) - this is what awareness frees us from.
I still don’t understand. How is resistance connected to what we were talking about?
Are you resistant to the possibility of being aware or perceiving without a mental image?
Resistance is what we are doing for example when we hold on to thought/belief despite the conflict it engenders - something to do with identifying with experience and image/moments.
Nope - this is not what I am trying to communicate.
However I do want to explore what that means. (Its kinda started on Dan’s thread I think)
Are you resistant to the possibility - suggested by Krishnamurti and others - of being aware or perceiving without a mental image?
But this is what you are communicating Douglas, over and over. I’m not sure you are aware of this?