Surely we are all stuck in our own ruts, Inquiry? There is no shame in being stuck in certain habits, repetitive thoughts, feelings, moods, behaviours. But there is always (so long as we are not completely stuck!) the possibility of being aware of our grooves, our habits. - No?
This isn’t a K dogma surely, is it? It’s just a human truth.
Hello James. Thanks for posting this. You have skillfully expressed what I was trying to communicate. I was at no point claiming that I am free from conditioning, but rather what I understand K to be saying about conditioning.
No, I don’t think "he believes himself to be completely free from “conditioning” - I know he believes. And I’m no less a believer than he is.
I took him to be saying that when we are aware (without choice) of our conditioning - of the movement of our thinking and feeling - then we are naturally more available to what is occurring in the “present moment”. - Would you strongly disagree with this?
No, of course not. What I’m finding tiresome is all the “if” and “when” statements, e.g., If and “when we are aware without choice”.
Perhaps you are reacting to some things that have been said by other people elsewhere on the forum who may genuinely be being dogmatic? But - in my opinion - I don’t think Sean was in this case.
No, I’m reacting to what we’re all saying. It’s tiresome because there’s satisfaction in being certain you know what the problem is and what the solution is, and this satisfaction can last a lifetime.
It seems that despite our understanding of K’s teaching, we’d rather remain within the traps we’ve set for ourselves. If one really wanted out, one wouldn’t be dragging out the process. But that’s just another “if”.
Come on Inquiry! 
To say that one “knows” something to be the case is surely too categorical. Sean just said that he
So do you simply reject his own self-report?
It’s a bit late now (in the UK), so I don’t want to write something that will create more confusion (my brain is a little tired); but I just want to briefly address this.
Because I get - to some extent at least - what you say about “believers”, and probably (as you say) we are all a little bit believers on this website. But I don’t understand what Sean wrote that was so triggering in this instance. He shared a very mild, very succinct summation of K’s teaching on awareness. I didn’t see anything wrong with it. So I’m wondering what it is more generally that drew your fire.
Yes, I understand that ‘if’ and ‘when’ statements do not refer to the actual present situation - but sometimes in order to communicate a basic point on these message boards, it is natural to speak in provisional hypotheticals (so long as one doesn’t remain ensconced at that level).
However, I vaguely recall conversing with you before about choiceless awareness, and I seem to remember that you had certain strong(ish) doubts or objections to it, in that you believed it to be almost impossible (I could be mis-remembering our conversation). So maybe this was the trigger?
If so, would you mind if I reflect on it briefly?
At a very basic level I do not have a choice in the face I have been born with, and which faces me when I see myself in the mirror. Right? - So to look at that face (i.e. my own face) in the mirror is - at one level - to see something without any choice. The face (i.e, my face) is just ‘there’, whether I like it or not.
Of course, there is more to it than that: there are the voices inside my brain that are also part of that looking - voices that like or dislike, approve or disapprove (of my face). And these voices are also there without my choosing. They are just ‘there’ - like the face in the mirror. So being aware of those voices (of judgement, like and dislike, etc) is also to be aware without choice.
So, as I understand it, choiceless awareness is just awareness spelled out for what it actually is: because one can only be aware of something that is already ‘there’, already happening, whether one likes it or not.
As Schopenhauer wrote,
A man can do as he wills, but not will as he wills.
That is to say, even though we can choose to act in different ways, we are not free to choose the fact of what is already in movement as our choices, desires, feelings, judgments, etc. So all we can do is be aware of what is already in motion.
I agree with you that having a verbal or rational solution solves nothing; and that having a verbal or rational solution is part of the trap we find ourselves in. - But simply drawing attention to one aspect of life (i.e. the significance of being aware of our conditioning, which is all that I heard Sean saying) is surely valid, no?
Have you read Aldous Huxley’s book Island (I’m not recommending it, but it has a few interesting passages)?
On this island (called Pala) a group of people who want to live a utopian life have trained some tropical birds (Mynah birds) to repeat certain slogans that help remind the community of certain key elements to an intelligent life:
Here and now! Here and now!
the birds call; and
Attention! Attention!
and
Karuna! Karuna!
(karuna means compassion in Sanskrit).
So this is all we are perhaps doing here (on this forum) sometimes; reminding each other of what is key in our lives - whether we are believers or unbelievers.
It’s like a mindfulness bell ringing out in a monastery (though we are not monks, and we are not in a monastery!).
And whether we tune in momentarily to what is said, or tune out, it is always an opportunity to take stock of where we are, and ask ourselves if we are being presently aware, or if we have affection (or even love! - usually not of course).
Here and now! Here and now!
I don’t see any harm in that.
No. What I’ve said is that Sean and I are the same in that we believe Krishnamurti saw clearly what the human condition is, and that he knew, actually, what happens when the brain sees it.
My annoyance (not anger) is with the fact that one can get comfortably stuck at this point.
even though we can choose to act in different ways, we are not free to choose the fact of what is already in movement as our choices, desires, feelings, judgments, etc. So all we can do is be aware of what is already in motion.
Unfortunately, “all we can do” is choose to deny, justify, or ignore what is “already in motion”, and be so dimly aware of doing this that it doesn’t seem to happen.
So this is all we are perhaps doing here (on this forum) sometimes; reminding each other of what is key in our lives - whether we are believers or unbelievers.It’s like a mindfulness bell ringing out in a monastery (though we are not monks, and we are not in a monastery!).
I’m sick of hearing it. How may times does one need to be reminded (by a bell!) that we’re the human version of Pavlov’s dogs?
And whether we tune in momentarily to what is said, or tune out, it is always an opportunity to take stock of where we are, and ask ourselves if we are being presently aware, or if we have affection (or even love! - usually not of course).
And the stock we take (if we’re honest) is that we’re stuck…in a comfortable rut that sustains the illusion of oneself.
Ah, I understand. You were saying that you “know” Sean is a believer. But was Sean really saying something that is just a matter of belief?
Have you honestly never become aware of an aspect of your conditioning, and dropped it naturally (at least for that moment)?
But, if we can put Sean’s intended meaning to one side (because only he knows what he intended), the problem you are really drawing attention to is this “stuckness”, right?
Because we all get stuck in certain places of this inquiry.
So my question to you is, why do we compare where we are with where we should be?
This is why I brought up the analogy of looking at one’s face in the mirror. One has no choice in one’s genetic composition (plastic surgery aside!).
Similarly, one has no choice in being “stuck”. If it truly is the case that all one does is
then this is the actual, present content of one’s psychology (in this moment). So can one not be aware of this? (no matter how dimly?).
Why should I compare myself with someone who seems not to be denying, justifying, ignoring what is already in motion? - someone who may be greatly aware and awake to their lives?
Good for them if they are capable of being so freely choiceless (and selfless).
But they are not me. I am me. And I am stuck in my stuckness, right? - And what is wrong with that? Will judging myself change anything? Will losing patience with myself, getting angry with myself, hating myself change what I am?
No. Because the impatience, the anger, the hatred are all a part of what is keeping me stuck - they are a part of who I am (just as the pleasure, the fear, the laziness that keeps me comfortably stuck, is also a part of myself).
So, seeing as this is a thread on the topic of compassion, is it compassionate to compare myself with another person who is not stuck? (i.e. someone who at least ‘appears’ to be free from pleasure, free from fear, free from anger and despair and hate - free from the illusion of self?).
I am what I am, godammit! If I am Pavlov’s dog, I am Pavlov’s dog!
Compassion (a) is just to be aware of this fact without judgement, and see where that leads. Not be aware because you tell me to be aware. But because this is my life, my actuality - the fact of what I am this very second (and only ‘I’ can know what I am at this very second).
And if this leads nowhere (though I doubt it leads absolute nowhere), then why should I compare this ‘nowhere’ to someone else’s ‘somewhere’. And why should my awareness of a fact lead ‘somewhere’? It may be that my awareness of myself is transforming what I am outside the range of what I am currently sensitive enough to perceive. So why judge? Why compare?
If my rut is comparison - which has been conditioned into me through my family, through my schooling, through my friends, my job, my culture - can I not be aware of this constant comparison going on (which is judging myself and judging others)? Why should I deny what is in front of my face? Because I find it ugly?
But it is ‘there’! I am comparing, judging, hating, afraid, seeking comfort, etc etc. Just because I judge it, doesn’t make it go away.
And if I don’t compare myself with who you are (or who you appear to be) - you who are free from comparison, free from self - then I am what I am, right? I am stuck in a rut of comparison (isn’t everybody?). And what is wrong with that? It is a fact! Like ones face in the mirror.
Doesn’t one’s own awareness of this fact have a value in itself, even if I am never transformed (the ‘transformation’ being of course comparative)?
And yet, at the same time, awareness is subtly transformative. A room with a light on is different from a room in total darkness.
Hey! I’d like to complain about my feelings too : I get upset about being drawn in to playing chess with pigeons.
The pigeon seems really cute and friendly - and makes some really surprising and original opening moves - but it always ends the same way - and if I mention all the shit, feathers and pieces strewn all over the place - it just coos and flies off, as if implying that it has somehow transcended the mundane stuff of rules, winning and losing etc…
Compassion is not getting my pigeon blaster - but seeing that he is no more guilty than I.
I was also trying to get to this question. Rather than start from our supposedly different points of view, could we continue to look for awhile at the facts we agree on and see where we can get to?
I was trying to get to this question of how or what next with what I asked here :
Does this seem correct? If something seems wrong, please don’t worry about pointing it out.
Different for me. Choice less awareness is the rarely discovered dimension of awareness that is in all ‘living’ things and all living things are in it. Its presence when felt, negates the illusion created by our superficial awareness that the observer and the observed are divided. There is no ‘division’. Perhaps it’s easier to see in nature? It has been referred to elsewhere as the ‘breeze’ that can’t be invited in, And “where the self is, the other is not”.
I don’t see a stated difference here in points of view. Rather, I am trying to state the theory of what might make a human arrive at this potential for choiceless awareness - and you Dan seem to be trying to describe what it is - the only possible disagreement might be that it cannot be invited, is not something outside of ourselves that we can affect. (but I don’t disagree with that)
The ‘how’ has been described in this way as I recall: look at the flower, see the petals, the shapes, the colors, the perfume etc. that is the superficial awareness of the flower. Now while looking at the flower you are having reactions to the flower, like , dislike , need to transplant, water it etc. that is also the superficial awareness of your reactions to the flower. They are the same awareness. Now there is another ‘dimension’ of awareness that is aware of the flower and of your reactions to it simultaneously. K stated enigmatically that this awareness is not “aware of itself”. (?)
PS Not the sort of thing you would ‘pray’ to. Or is it? Is it the essence of what all things are?
PPS it’s this awareness that can “be aware when you are unaware”?
I suppose that we are trying to find out if we can be aware of this awarenes 
Your comment still seems to be different descriptions of awareness - and a question that I cannot quite understand :
We seem to be asking about the possibilty of some unknown (to us) aspect of awareness
The answer is obvious: we do this because we believe we know where we should be. We are believers, dreaming of being beyond belief.
Why should I compare myself with someone who seems not to be denying, justifying, ignoring what is already in motion? - someone who may be greatly aware and awake to their lives?
It can’t be helped. One is not free to see what is actual, but only to see what one makes of it, i.e., what-should/should-not-be. We both believe everything you’ve said about comparison is true. I could give the same lecture to you if you were in my place. We have internalized the teaching, reminding ourselves and each other of what-should-be. We just keep ringing that bell.
So, seeing as this is a thread on the topic of compassion, is it compassionate to compare myself with another person who is not stuck? (i.e. someone who at least ‘appears’ to be free from pleasure, free from fear, free from anger and despair and hate - free from the illusion of self?).
According to the teaching, all we can know about compassion is that it’s beyond the brain, so, being a brain, I’m not qualified to say anything about it. I can feel empathy, but compassion is beyond me.
But to reply to your question, “is it compassionate to compare myself with another person who is not stuck?”…I wouldn’t know, since I would have to project, to believe, the other person is not stuck, seeing as how my perception is distorted by my beliefs.
I am what I am, godammit! If I am Pavlov’s dog, I am Pavlov’s dog!
All of us here are domesticated dogs, caged, conditioned, and content, having found our alpha dog.
That’s exactly how I read K’s description of it, a different “dimension” of awareness. But one that the ordinary human mind / brain could come into contact with. This possible ‘contact’ is what I understand to be the “setting free” of Man that he spoke of. The contact with the “Immensity “.
Roger that McD - we are asking what might lead to this contact.
I proposed this (rather terrible) set of occurences :
What do you reckon? Have I paraphrased K correctly? Can we (I’m hoping @Sean will chime in too) agree on this to begin with?
I’m happy to chime in here but I don’t know how choiceless awareness arises. Do we get glimpses of it? Are we sometimes choicelessly aware? Or are we always anchored in our conditioning and never experiencing anything as if for the first time?
I can relate a story to this. Way back in the day, I had the opportunity to try LSD from the Osley Lab. It was remarkable in every way. Regarding “experiencing anything for the first time”, a friend and I were walking on the street and we passed a service station. A garage that serviced autos. I stopped in front of it absolutely awestruck. I had never seen anything like it before (though of course I had) it seemed to me a modern marvel, a marvel of efficiency, technology, of ‘service’, of colors…I was seeing it for ‘the first time’…the ‘trip’ lasted an exhausting eight hours of experiences with nature, with people …and I vowed to myself as I finally went to sleep that I would never forget what I had seen and felt…but of course , one does. 
I don’t think choiceless awareness is some mysterious entity which is fleeting in characteristic, and only glimpses we can have of.
It is just being aware of yourself passively and when we are relaxed and calm we are already in that state.
The problem clearly is about staying with it as thought, feelings conflicts take over.
So one can be aware any moment. In fact a pause in thought process is nothing but being aware.
One might conclude that that’s sorted then - unless the goal is to never think again?
Sorry, didn’t understand. Could you elaborate.