I agree with you when you say that
All that is being pointed to - as far as I understand it - is that it is not out the bounds of possibility (or even everyday normality) to momentarily be aware of those complications, incoherence, or conflict.
That momentary awareness (of incoherence, conflict, etc) may be the seed of a broader quality of awareness that K calls attention.
If what you call ânon-conceptual awarenessâ is what I call ânaked awarenessâ, and weâre both referring to what K called âchoiceless awarenessâ, why donât we agree on what to call it?
Yes - but we oughtnât to make an ideal out of this ânaked awarenessâ. There may be more to awareness than simply noticing my conflict (for example), but awareness begins there, very small, very near, very simple.
I didnât know awareness could be idealized. Distorted, corrupted, denied, etc., yes, but how can something so primal, so simple, be anything more or greater? And how does nakedness idealize anything?
I just mean that some people (you may not be one of them) have a tendency to make choiceless awareness, or bare attention, into some kind of impossible action that no ordinary person can hope to achieve - when it is, on the contrary, a most natural and normal state.
If we can allow ourselves freedom, we are denying ourselves freedom. So why arenât we aware of practicing this denial?
An activity in the present not in order to get something in the future. Are we even capable of such a thing or is every action we embark on based on desire?
Doing something now because I may regret not doing it later is not based on desire - itâs based on knowing what I must do now if I intend to be alive and in reasonably good health later. Itâs practicalâŚunless Iâm so ecstatically present today that I donât mind not waking up tomorrow.
Are we hard-wired to unconsciously ask âwhatâs in it for me?â at every turn thus making it impossible to meet the present moment, life, creation without preferential selection.
The wiring isnât hard. Conditioning can and does undo itself.
Krishnamurti seems to have felt that finding out for ourselves what it is that routinely blocks out pure awareness, is central to understanding how it is that we humans are capable of committing such horrendous violence.
K spoke of choiceless awareness, and in our discussion of awareness weâve referred to it as pure, naked, non-conceptual, etc., all of which implies that awareness, like perception and observation, can be tampered with, polluted, and corrupted to serve the interest of the brain conditioned to act entirely on its own behalf instead of whatâs best for all living things.
The intention to be aware is for some gain. Unforced awareness of self comes from some actual, honest wariness.
It seems obvious that we are referring to the process of self.
Is the intellectual notion that self and suffering are the same movement clear for us at least?
If so why does this intellectual understanding not produce any transformation?
I am aware that I am being my usual angry, painful self, causing mischief. So what, who cares?
Isnât this the kind of attitude that blocks enquiry? This attitude suggests impatience, demanding a result. Why must there be a result when we are just enquiring, looking?
That little mustard seed of awareness - of being angry, or having pain - may have the potential to grow into a flourishing bush or tree. But if we throw it aside as having no worth, then what is there to enquire with?
I am aware that I am being my usual angry, annoying self, causing mischief.
What is the correct attitude that might arise here? Do we force it? Does it happen spontaneously? Why not?
Itâs enough that you are aware of it Douglas! 
However, more seriously, the âcorrect attitudeâ here (such as it is) is surely to take an interest in such a small phenomenon as being aware of oneâs emotional state. Out of small things big things grow, a journey of a thousand miles begins with one step - so it makes logical sense to slow down and enquire into what is near at hand.
This is the struggle I see with someone like Inquiry perhaps (sorry Inquiry!) - it seems to take an infinite amount of persuasion to just get him to accept that heâs stubbed his toe. And even when one has arrived at that simple point, there is a whole list of reasons why that is insufficient, polluted, irrelevant, etcâŚ
I donât understand this attitude of resistance - or dismissiveness - to just looking at something simple and enquiring further into it?
You tell me. Why do we have to overcomplicate everything?
Oups! I added a bit to my reply above - perhaps the most important bit
How does the correct attitude arise? What is necessary?
I think Inquiry knows heâs stubbed his toe - he just doesnât see how we can see differently from what we see.
I donât think me giving my opinion again, is going to help anything.
If this does not seem important, forget it
Douglas, you said (in your reply to Dev):
But the very sentence that preceded this line was the following:
Isnât this the fundamental issue? We confuse an intellectual understanding with actual perception, actual awareness. Which leads us to dismiss or reject the authentic and actual seed of awareness (which may be very humble) that we really do have.
Fundamental indeed.
One question that comes up :
Why is awareness more important than what I want?
By which I mean has it been seen clearly that I am the cause of suffering? Has there been the fundamental insight that is freedom from the known.?
Another question : what is it that separates intellectual clarity from total clarity? What comes between understanding the model and transformation itself?
First of all, how do you know what you want? Mustnât you first of all be aware of your wants in order to act on them?
Secondly, and relatedly, all the things you mention - about âseeing the cause of sufferingâ, âhaving an insight into freedom from knowledgeâ, etc - imply some kind of awareness. Without awareness they are just words, statements, ideas.
And thirdly, more as a matter of form, this thread is explicitly dedicated to exploring the topic of awareness, not the question of self, suffering, knowledge, etc (although they are obviously connected).
I would say, the degree to which awareness is present or absent in that so-called clarity.
and truth is a pathless land, so slow and smell the flowers before yer pushinâ up daisies, podner.
This is the struggle I see with someone like Inquiry perhaps (sorry Inquiry!) - it seems to take an infinite amount of persuasion to just get him to accept that heâs stubbed his toe.
Not true. If the brain is not conditioned to pretend or believe something more significant than a toe-stubbing has taken place, it does not react inappropriately or mistakenly to awareness of stubbing its toe.
I donât understand this attitude of resistance - or dismissiveness - to just looking at something simple and enquiring further into it?
What you donât understand is that the conditioned brain is not capable of âjust looking at something simpleâ because it is complicated by its conditioning.
For instance, if the brain is conditioned to believe that toe-stubbing has meaning beyond mere toe stubbing, that it is bad or good luck or that it portends something, its complicated awareness of toe-stubbing is nothing like your simple awareness of toe-stubbing. Capiche?
Apologies btw for speaking about you personally in my reply to Douglas - it was mischievous of me!
It feels, Inquiry, as if we are speaking a completely different language from one another.
Surely everyoneâs brain is conditioned and complicated by its conditioning - but this does not mean that one is incapable of being (very simply, modestly) aware of inner and outer facts.
You may think you are a machine, and convince yourself and others you are a machine - but you are just as capable as anyone else of paying attention, being aware (it doesnât matter of what) for a few seconds at a time.
You can feel boredom and be aware of it. You can feel pain and be aware if it. You can taste your morning coffee and be aware of it. Smelling, tasting, feeling and seeing are all forms of awareness. When you see the colour blue (if you are not colour blind) that is a form of awareness.
So why are you denying this (if you are denying this)?
And if youâre not denying this, what is stopping you from exploring this question of awareness with an open mind for at least a few moments before the habitual conditioning takes over?
What Iâm personally interested in exploring through this question of awareness is what K talks about when he says there is an âattentionâ in which
âthe mind becomes completely quiet, silent, without any pressureâ
and has âvast spaceâ.
An attention in which there is âa quality of silenceâ that is
âbeyond the brainâ
and in which
âSilence and spaciousness go together.â
These seem to be the wider reaches of the ordinary, everyday awareness we take so much for granted.
Theoretically, yes. But actually, every conditioned brain reacts to what awareness reveals according it is conditioning.
Smelling, tasting, feeling and seeing are all forms of awareness. When you see the colour blue (if you are not colour blind) that is a form of awareness. So why are you denying this (if you are denying this)?
Iâm not denying that âSmelling, tasting, feeling and seeing are all forms of awarenessâ, Iâm saying that one brainâs smelling, tasting, and seeing are its peculiar way of smelling, tasting, feeling and seeing, due to itâs conditioning.
And if youâre not denying this, what is stopping you from exploring this question of awareness with an open mind for at least a few moments before the habitual conditioning takes over?
If there are âa few moments before the habitual conditioning takes overâ, thereâs awareness of what conditioning is doing to awareness, and the brain is free for a few moments. But is it? All a brain needs are a few moments to avoid conditioned response, but how may brains have more than a microsecond of awareness of its conditioning, if any?
It seems to me, that to have a few moments of awareness of what I feel compelled to say or do, is enough time to never make the mistake of saying or doing what I feel compelled to do.
Awareness is key apparently. Does the following story sound accurate?
Awareness occurs naturally, we are naturally aware. We are aware of our suffering. We hear the teachings that speak of stuff like wiping away each thought with awareness. This is the start of wisdom/transformation/learning/freedom (or whatever we want to call it)?