The notion of choiceless awareness has been around, in different forms, for a long time. But Krishnamurti’s take on it is (afaik) unique. It is also at the hub of his worldview, that from which the inner human revolution (awakening of intelligence) emerges.
I find Krishnamurti’s choiceless awareness (simply ‘choiceless awareness’ from here on) to be one of those things that, on the surface, is simple: It can be explained quite clearly it in a few sentences to a newbie. But each time I revisit it, I see something new. (Emptiness is like that for me in Buddhism, brahman in Advaita, wu-wei in Taoism.)
Since choiceless awareness is so foundational in Krishnamurti’s teachings, and since it’s so easily misunderstood or half-understood, I thought it would be useful (and fun!) to explore it, as if for the first time.
The moment I read your question, I got the answer instantly. Maybe I have read it previously.
We cannot arrive at a certain place without intention. Meanwhile, we may face obstacles in reaching our destination. The way we reach the point is more important than just reaching the point, I think.
In your original posting, you put those words in a quote, so I thought you were quoting someone.
If this is true, then choiceless awareness is either 1) not a place, or 2) it is a place but one cannot go to it. (By place I mean: state of mind, mode of being, etc. Not a physical place.)
I don’t know what he meant. For me it is a ‘leap’ or a ‘jump’…there is an awareness of yourself doing something, thinking, talking, etc and the whole picture comes into view. This ‘state of observation ‘ can last for seconds or minutes. There is no feeling of ‘identification ‘ with what is being seen. There is no ‘holding on’ to this state because there is no one to do the holding. It’s a living state, the memory of it is a dead thing. It can happen at any moment.
No not at all. The leap probably takes place through (is) the 'insight ’ that you are asleep. The insight is the ‘leap’ or ‘jump’ out of , call it , the ‘normal’ or waking sleep mode.
Once the brain experiences this state, there seems to be an ‘allowance’ of it to take place more and more. Why? Probably because of the ‘freedom’ it senses? It sees clearly that the ‘thinker is the thought’ for example. It’s not theoretical. In any case, it is always ‘transformative’ in the moment.
Awareness is more choiceless than breathing, but the conditioned mind reacts to elements of awareness that it “chooses” to support its conditioning. For instance, I am listening to the birds and I hear a particular birdcall that I believe is a harbinger of drought or flood or fire, etc., and I’m overwhelmed with dread. Or, I’m delighted because it signifies peace and prosperity. Regardless of what significance I’m conditioned to give to what I’m aware of, my conditioning distorts awareness and affects my behavior, and Krishnamurti calls this distortion “choice” because it is imposed by human will.
In such a situation, a flood relief worker will respond in a completely different way. It is true that conditioning will affect the behavior of the mind in a given situation. A mind with some sort of detachment and skepticism may perceive the situation more closer to reality, I guess.
How the mind can be aware of stereotypes that happened in a group of people?
What is the role of expectations in our awareness?
I dunno … to say that every situation, every moment calls for one action that comes from full awareness of the moment, and that any choice in the matter derives from confusion … that just sounds way reductive to me, a missing of the complexity and subtlety of how things unfold.
Was Picasso confused when he chose a color from his palette, or when he painted over something in a different color? (I know this analogy doesn’t hold 100%, but go with it.) I don’t think so, I think he was playing, interacting, dancing with the world.
If choiceless awareness is based on the idea that choice means confusion and choicelessness clarity, then I dunno if I buy it, it sounds fishy. Of course it’s very possible I’m misunderstanding Krishnamurti’s intended meaning of choice and choiceless.
Choice implies that the mind isn’t free to observe, examine, discover, etc., because it is limited to what it knows and believes within the context of what-should/should-not-be.
A free mind isn’t bound by words, images, ideas, hopes, beliefs, etc., so it is free to act without choosing a course of action.
If i might, I think you are more than a bit hung up on this idea of “what he meant”. Why don’t you just do it? Look at yourself without choosing what to look at, what to see, what to hear, what to feel… You can go on for years about what he ‘meant’, but when you do it yourself, perhaps, you’ll see what he meant. As he was fond of saying, “just do it sir!.”
