For Krishnamurti, image means something that is not real, image is not what it is. It seems to me that this meaning of the word image is difficult for us to understand, perhaps because of the widespread use of that word in technology, that has led to its evolution following the changes in the technological world. Since the 1970s or 1980s we have lived in a world of images —TV, the internet, computers, smartphones — but most of the time we believe that images are representations of something real. We see and talk to images online, but behind these images we think there is someone real.
I wonder if the meaning of ‘image’ was much closer to ‘imagination’ before the 1970s. So when Krishnamurti says ‘The husband has images of his wife and the wife has images of her husband’, we should translate this as 'The husband imagines things — what she should be or do — about his wife and the wife imagines things — what he should be or do — about her husband.’ Now, we have an imaginary relationship, not a real one. That is, our relationships are based on imagination.
I think the question is - What is the nature of the image that we have about others and ourselves and how is it created and is it possible to stop the image making machinery?
Yes, our thoughts and feelings, essentially everything we experience, is based on the past, on our conditioning as @Inquiry says below. Essentially images constructed from memory overlaid on consciousness.
Just as important though, if not more so, is the fact that the conditioned mind itself is based on the same imagination. We are to a large degree who we are because of our particular upbringing, cultural influences, etc.
The next question then is, is that everything that we are? Or is there more to the experiencer? is there a self-entity that is other than its conditioning? Cause if there isn’t, if the experiencer is nothing but conditioning - and there is no wizard/observer underlying the whole affair - then the implication is enormous. Our world should be/would be rocked to its core. The problem of what is going on here takes on a whole new dimension.
Self-knowledge then would not be about unearthing the intricate ways in which we are conditioned, though that is not without value. It would rather be about awakening to - as opposed to imagining - the fact that me and my experience are one and the same. Of course, all this depends on whether it is or is not the case that the observer is essentially the same as the observed.
Awareness may be the answer. I can think that I love, but when I realize that my relationship is based on my need for money, sex, company and so on, that image of ‘love’ disappears and is replaced by what is really happening, the fact. Images can only exist as long as we are convinced that they are facts, not imagination.
The image is created when we are insulted or praised. From that image making process we react to each other which generally ends up in all sorts of problem. Can one not make the image when he or she is insulated?
I have an image of myself. Someone insults my self-image because (as they see it) it does not accord with my behavior, which makes me a hypocrite in their minds.
If I don’t want them to think of me as a hypocrite, I have to prove to their satisfaction that I am not a hypocrite. And if I’m not a hypocrite, why do I have an image of myself?