Dear Inquiry, we should then make clear what psychological thought means, to you and me. To me a psychological thought is about myself, remembering a feeling or an experience, which was pleasant or not, and if I think that to project it into the future. This remembering is based on our condition, it can be conscious or not, but it is at the root already chosen by our conditioning. That does not mean that all thoughts are like that. For sure not. The thoughts when I am hungry are not like that and they are no psychological thoughts to me. I see it as you do we can only observe our thoughts and reactions. But why should we do it? What makes us feel that it is important to do so?
I’m just being logical. (A rare occurrence for me!)
My starting point: When the self is present, choice is present. Might be very subtle, but it’s there.
Assuming this is right: One-hundred percent choiceless awareness/seeing/listening is impossible when self is present. 99% might be possible, 100% not.
I don’t think there’s any way around this when conventional logic is followed. If there is, tell me!
I’m not trying to say some degree, perhaps a high degree, of a/s/l is impossible. I think it is, but tbh after Paul brought up the notion that all relativism (degrees, for example) is a product of thought, I am no longer so sure!
Again, we are in our cul de sac, please let’s consider giving this a rest, agreeing to disagree. 
Dear Rick, I think the cul de sac is thinking and the way out is choiceless awareness. Do we really see that we are in a cul de sac and that thinking will not help us? Or do we still want to do something about the cul de sac in order to find a solution out?
Erik, I am not trying to be argumentative or difficult, but I have the feeling that it is you and Rick who are not reading what has been shared very closely.
I agree that we ought not bring conditions to bear on our awareness of the present actuality; but do you not see that you are introducing just such a condition when you ask
You repeat this contradiction in your most recent reply to me:
Maybe we are using the same words and giving them two different meanings, but you seem to have suggested that the self must end before there can be choiceless awareness. This is a condition, a demand, an expectation (placed there, as far as I can see, by thought), is it not?
As I tried to carefully explain, there is no choice about who or what we are in the present moment; there is only what is. There is no choice about it.
There might be choosing going on in the what is (“what is” being the actuality of whatever is happening for us presently), and some of this choosing may be harmless, some of it may be positively harmful. So then this choosing is there, without our choosing. Do you see the difference?
As you yourself have said above,
In this observing of the choosing, the choosing may be so strong, so powerful, that there is simply no room, no space for observation to take place. In such a circumstance we are clearly completely identified with the choosing, by which we might say we are caught in a reaction, in the movement of thought (self).
But even then, there is still the possibility of catching ourselves in this reaction, of being aware (without choice) of the effects of this choosing on our body, on the physical organism, the sensations it is creating in our chest, our throat, our stomach, etc. Right?
Clearly, when there is observation of at least some kind going on (psychologically speaking) it implies that thinking, identification with thinking, self, etc, is not absolute. So if this is all you mean by saying that
I agree with you. But if you are stipulating that the self must be non-existent for choiceless awareness to happen, then I think you are mistaken (at least if you wish to hold to that view).
Dear James, I understand you know and the question here is really what do we mean by ending. I do not mean by it that we are completely rid of the self. That might be the case or not. Who knows. But as long as the self is the dominating factor and we are identifying ourselves with thinking and memories we cannot be choicelessly aware. So if we realy see the what is, whatever is in the moment outwardly and inwardly, the self cannot be dominant anymore and retreats. It is not that the self has to retreat and then we are choicelessly aware. That is not possible. It is something that goes along. That is what I wanted to convey. We cannot make that happen. Not by will and certainly not if we bring in conditions. The question to me is here: How - and I do not mean a system or means here - can this choiceless awareness arise? Can thinking or the self see its own limitations?
1 Like
Rick, if I may say this in a friendly spirit, you are never just being logical! If you were being logical, then you would have seen the logic in what has already been shared with you: i.e. that you have absolutely no choice about what is going on - what is - this very second. This is a fact that you cannot dispute.
So your stipulation of condition x or condition y for being choiceless is logically indefensible, as far as logic goes (which is not very far!).
And the point is, when it comes to awareness, we are not talking about logic, but about what is actually unfolding in our awareness - not merely at the level of the thinking (logical or otherwise).
So, when you say that
the question we are asking is not a logical question that requires a dispute, a mental argument, a clever defence, etc - which all becomes so tiring after a while - but a call to awareness. As in, are we aware of this movement of choice (in the mind)?
No Rick. You are in a cul de sac, created by your own thinking. I am not (at least not in this case!). As has been explained already, there is no cul de sac about being selfish, choosing, etc, because there is always the possibility/opportunity/exit of just being aware that one is caught in selfishness, in choosing, reacting, thinking, etc.
I wish we didn’t have to always go over this tired ground. There is no cul de sac, sorry.
Ah yes, thinking as source of all cul de sacs, maybe!
Maybe. Maybe not. The proof is in the pudding?
Eat it then!!! 
Yes, I am in a cul de sac and need time to find my way out.
Thing is, when one half of a relationship is in a cul de sac, the other half and the relationship itself get stymied. Think: house of cards.
-
Tapioca? (Yum.)
-
I do eat it, I take tiny little bites every so often, teasers. You?
Well, quite. Given your reasoning, it can’t…
Erik, I am surprised at this, you are too smart a fellow to get caught in words like this.
Do you have any choice about who and what you are this second?
No. You are what you are, without any choice. So why can’t one just be aware of that?
To be aware of what one is this very second - as a saint or an egoist, a genius or an idiot, a beautiful person or an ugly shambles - is sufficient.
Why the demand (which is really a form of greed) for something more?
Maybe there is nothing more. Maybe that is all there is to choiceless awareness. But if there is something more to it than that, one will never find out by running ahead of oneself into something called “pure choiceless awareness”, “pure selfless awareness” or the like.
This is a practical matter, something to be done, experimented with, tried out - not something to be furthered through speculative reasoning and disputation.
3 Likes
Haha - no you don’t! 
Examiner, does your comment contribute something lively and interesting to the discussion, or are you just here to troll?
If you are just here to be sarcastic, or to display your perhaps superior insight, then maybe you are in the wrong place? Because nobody here is claiming to be superior or inferior, we are just discussing what it means to efficiently act, to be, to do (or not do). That’s all.
If it bores you, then just ignore this thread and comment elsewhere.
I think K is pointing at a different conclusion than that, a different possibility, when he says “be attentive when you are inattentive”. No?
Placing the dimension of ‘attention’ outside of the self’s realm of attention/inattention? A “different dimension of awareness “.
Read the above carefully again . I edited it.
I did not bring the notion “choiceless awareness” in. I just followed your thread in using it. I would have not used it. I completely agree with you. We are what we are now. We do not have any choice in it. It is just sufficient to be aware. But the fact is people are not. Otherwise we as humanity would not live in that crisis. I can be ill - and in my work I had many people who were physically or psychologically ill - and be aware that I have to change my food or behaviour etc. but I am not doing it. And I am aware of that too. That is obviously not the awareness we are discussing here. As I said above, I completely agree with you. I am not looking for anything more or will speculate about something. I am interested, why change does not take place even if people are aware of their state. What is missing, that there is a practical relevance, an acting?
1 Like
But what is the relevant thing when he says "be attentive when you are inattentive? It is attention, is it not? And what happens then to inattention? I would say so that attention and inattention are not opposites. Attention, as we talk about it here, has nothing to do with the self.
1 Like
Ask yourself if " practical Krishnamurti?" Contributes to anything worth while.
I think this is the main issue. In general people are not. That is so. And when you ask what is “missing”, there are likely a number of very important factors involved.
But must this stop you or I from being aware of ourselves in the present?
I don’t want to put words in your mouth, but I’m sure you would agree with me that just because others are not aware, this is no reason for us to remain unaware ourselves. Correct?
So there is nothing stopping us from experimenting with this awareness - awareness of the world outside and the world inside. That’s all I’m suggesting here.
Because the thread is on the topic of “efficient doing”, I prefer just to keep it to this simple level. Or rather, I make no claims to being an expert in awareness, so I don’t want to get ahead of where I am and start speculating using thought.
I just want to stop and look (in the metaphor of the OP), and not make the “stopping” and “looking” (or the interest in stopping and looking) into a problem that then becomes more important than the stopping and looking (if you see what I mean).
I just want to be simple about it, even if it is a little boring to do so.
I am not a specialist in the English language (by which I mean that I have not specialised in Old English or linguistics), but I have studied English literature and taught English academically, so I do try to be precise with my language. So I don’t see the point of your sarcasm. There is no wit in it as far as I can make out.
The fact that you admit to having made your comments without reading the OP or the thread itself, means that you are really in no position to criticise others who post here.
I have already given some reasons why I thought it worth exploring the topic at hand (which I won’t repeat here); but even I had no reason for it, the topic still interests me, which is reason enough to look into it with others.
Effective doing or action; efficient doing or action.
That’s up to others to decide. The thread itself is not premised on the belief that Krishnamurti’s teachings are either practical or impractical. It merely asks the question: which of K’s teachings do people find eminently practical?
You seem to be under the impression that there are large numbers of people reading through these comments preparing to be shocked by what they find. But I really don’t think we need to concern ourselves with efficient propaganda, or with treating the general public like children, do we? We are the general public. Nobody speaks on K’s behalf here, not even yourself, Examiner.
Oh, I would never use correct English like Krishnamurti did, that would be blasphemous!
2 Likes