The Talks on Freedom - The Importance of Awareness

                              Pay complete attention


                                                  “I am suggesting that a mind that is aware requires that the mind must enquire into your
                                                   ambition, your desire for power, prestige, position, the way you treat people; how you crawl
                                                              on your knees when you meet a big man, your desire for security, a job, position.
                                                                                               See the structure of all this, be aware of it.
                                                          And when you are totally aware of it, you are out of it in a flash, it has dropped out.”
                                                          {The Krishnamurti Text Collection, Bombay, India; 1st Public Talk, 19th February 1961}

                                                                               Q: “Will you please explain what you mean by awareness?”

                                                                                                            K: “Just simple awareness! … “
                                                                                        {Collected Works: Volume 9, Amsterdam, 5th Talk, May 26 1955}
                                                                                                                                                                     * [See below for the full excerpt]

Awareness is not an obscure, esoteric, mystical facility. Of all the issues raised in the talks, awareness (attention, observation, watchfulness) has apparently brought about more confusion and uncertainty than anything else. Invariably, when one talks about awareness, the mind shifts its attention to self-analysis and puts the question: who or what is it that is aware? This is a wrong question (it is the self attempting to analyze itself) and the pursuit of it only leads to further confusion.

Awareness is just that - awareness. Everyone can be fully aware of the outside environment: the computer screen in front of you, nature beyond your window. Being totally aware of all this is a different matter, as is being aware of the constant inner movement of thought, without the sense of a separate observer looking at it.

You don't need to think, to be conscious, to be aware of your environment. Awareness is of the natural bodily organism, with all its senses operating in harmony. Life in many ways is like driving a car: if you don’t pay full attention, without thinking about that which you are aware (and in which there are obviously periods of brief inattention), you will come unstuck. Life demands attention, it is the quality, level and intensity of this attention that is the issue.

However, whilst awareness in itself is easily understood (but a much harder state to be in continuously; the word used in the talks is “arduous”), the way it is extensively dealt with appears to cloud the issue with a range of related factors, such as sensitivity, passion, inquiry/questioning, the issue of realization, the intensity of the mind required for it, a quiet mind, and so on. There must be a holistic approach to awareness that resolves all these outstanding issues.

It is clear that awareness is immediate, in the present, and therefore is not of thought and not of time. One is not talking here about chronological time, for awareness will always occur in time, even if measured in nanoseconds. The time here is the psychological time of the mind in which it is trapped. You can see this in yourself. When you have a flash of understanding about something you can observe how thought then comes rushing in with all its reactions and associations, based on the past, which is time. Understanding is only in the present, in the interval before these reactions set in.

                                           “In awareness there is only the present - that is, being aware, you see the past process of influence
                               which controls the present and modifies the future. Awareness is an integral process, not a process of division.
                     ... If I am aware I perceive this entire process of the past, its effect in the present and in the future, integrally, as a whole.”
                                                               {Book of Life Daily Meditations, Introspection is incomplete, June 16 2007}
~~~
   Can we be aware without the observer?

                                                                           “The self is a problem that thought cannot resolve.
                                                                          There must be an awareness which is not of thought.
                               To be aware, without condemnation or justification, of the activities of the self - just to be aware - is sufficient.”
                                                  {The First and Last Freedom, The self is a problem that thought cannot resolve, page 113}

This is the crucial point, which may hold the key to this whole subject of awareness. The observer, which is the self, which is the past, which is knowledge, which is memory, distorts and perverts the total awareness of the present, which is the only thing of which one must be aware. It sets up an artificial division by establishing a aeparate controller, censor, judger and evaluator of that which is observed. Then thought as this controller, as this thinker, reacts instantly to everything that it observes, using its memory of past reactions and experiences; hence nothing is seen anew, as it is, in the present. This is the process of abstraction, the very activity of thought: the inability to see only the fact for what it is, without naming and reinforcing it. Only when the observer is completely absent - when there is only the observed - is there true awareness:

“My mind observes loneliness, and avoids it, runs away from it. But if I do not run away from it, is there a division, is there a separation, is
there an observer watching loneliness? Or, is there only a state of loneliness, my mind itself being empty, lonely? Not that there is an observer who knows that there is loneliness.

I think this is important to grasp, swiftly, not verbalizing too much. We say now "I am envious, and I want to get rid of envy," so there is an observer and the observed; the observer wishes to get rid of that which he observes. But is the observer not the same as the observed?   It
is the mind itself that has created the envy, and so the mind cannot do anything about envy. So, my mind observes loneliness; the thinker is aware that he is lonely. But by remaining with it, being fully in contact, which is, not to run away from it, not to translate and all the rest of it, then, is there a difference between the observer and the observed? Or is there only one state, which is, the mind itself is lonely, empty?
Not that the mind observes itself as being empty, but mind itself is empty.

Then, can the mind, being aware that it itself is empty, and that whatever its endeavor, any movement away from that emptiness is merely an escape, a dependence, can the mind put away all dependence and be what it is, completely empty, completely lonely? And if it is in that state, is there not freedom from all dependence, from all attachment?”
                                                    {Book of Life Daily Meditations, Is there an observer watching loneliness?, August 19 2007}
~~~
                                                      "Awareness is the silent and and choiceless observation of what is;
                                               in this awareness the problem unrolls itself, and thus it is fully and completely understood."
                                                         {Commentaries on Living: First Series, Awareness, page 101}

Self-awareness is not awareness for this is self-consciousness, where the self (the observer) is looking at itself for the purpose of evaluation, judgment or censoring, in order to change what it is observing, or justify it, or run away from it. Awareness does not seek to change that which it is observing - that is awareness with a motive, which is not choiceless, hence it is self-based.

It is clear that awareness is not intellectual analysis. Analysis implies an analyzer, which again is the observer. It is because analysis is a process of division - the analyzer separating itself from the analyzed - that all analysis leads nowhere.

Choice (which, simply put, is personal like and dislike) implies a chooser, which again is the analyzer, the observer in action. If there is no observer which is evaluating or judging what it is seeing, then it is not a matter of choice. One is aware of everything that is going on, both of the outer environment and the inner workings of the mind. This is what is called choiceless awareness. Partial awareness is not sufficient; it implies that the mind is preoccupied with other issues and is choosing what it wants to be aware of. Only in total awareness is there the possibility of the spontaneous stilling of thought. Total attention is essential for one to have an insight into what is observed.

There is nothing else in or of the mind, no action of the will which can end the self, as the will is the self. When the mind has fallen silent, there obviously will still be thought where it is needed, but this thought will have its right place. It will also, because it is not distorted by any self-interest; be logical, coherent, sane and totally objective, which is a different state of thought from that which we know.
~~~
       Awareness must be completely passive.

                                                                        “Only in passive awareness is the meaning of what is understood.”
                                                           {Book of Life Daily Meditations, Effort is distraction from what is, August 28 2007}

                                                                                            “… to understand, the mind must be quiet.
                                                                                       The mind must be choicelessly, passively, aware;
                                                                 and in that state, there is understanding of the many problems of our life.”
                                                                             {Collected Works, London, 4th Public Talk, 23^rd October 1949}

This very passivity may be one of the crucial stumbling blocks in the whole thing. We have been trained from childhood to take action - some action, any action - on what we see. We are doers, we are trained to be positive, we act. The action can be escape, justification, censorship, judgment - all these are actions. They are self-initiated actions, based on past experiences. If we see emptiness in ourselves, what seems to be the basic, automatic reaction is to fill it, or change it, or avoid it. All these actions are based on past ideas and associations, which is our conditioning. Alert passivity implies simple objectivity, no reaction by any observer to what is seen.

So, all actions we take, which are reactions, are of the past. We cannot react without the past. This reaction, which appears to be automatic, distracts awareness, diverts attention. Whereas this passivity means just observation and complete inaction on what is observed. One is intensely alert, but non-reactive. Moreover, it implies remaining with the feeling behind that which is observed, without naming it, which is a very difficult thing to do. It is clear that one needs a great energy - all one's energy in fact - to be passively alert.

“Try remaining with the feeling of hate, with the feeling of envy, jealousy, with the venom of ambition; for after all, that's what you have in daily life, though you may want to live with love, or with the word `love'. Since you have the feeling of hate, of wanting to hurt somebody with a gesture or a burning word, see if you can stay with that feeling. Can you? Have you ever tried? Try to remain with a feeling, and see what happens. You will find it amazingly difficult. Your mind will not leave the feeling alone; it comes rushing in with its remembrances, its associations, its do's and don'ts, its everlasting chatter. …

                                           Can you look without the movement of the mind? Can you live with the feeling behind the word,
                                          without the feeling that the word builds up? If you can, then you will discover an extraordinary thing,
                                                            a movement beyond the measure of time, a spring that knows no summer.”
                                                            (Commentaries On Living: Series III, Chapter 37 'Aloneness Beyond Loneliness'}
~~~
   Can thought realize its own nature?

“In this relationship called society, every human being is cutting himself off from another by his position, by his ambition, by his desire for fame, power, and so on; but he has to live in this brutal relationship with other men like himself, so the whole thing is glossed over and made respectable by pleasant-sounding words.” … “Thought, which has been giving all importance to itself, isolating itself as the `me', the ego,
has finally come to the point of realizing that it's held in the prison of its own making.”
                                                                    {Commentaries On Living: Series III, 'Aloneness Beyond Loneliness'}

The central issue of awareness appears to be its level of intensity and thus energy, and this quality may start only with a realization of thought. It is stated in the talks that a full realization of thought will temporarily bring its incessant movement to a halt and enable full attention to occur:

“So long as the ‘me’ is the observer, the one who gathers experience, strengthens himself through experience, there can be no radical change, no creative release. That creative release comes only when the thinker is the thought, but the gap cannot be bridged by any effort. When the mind realizes that any speculation, any verbalization, any form of thought only gives strength to the ‘me’, when it sees that as long as the thinker exists apart from thought there must be limitation, the conflict of duality - when the mind realizes that - then it is watchful, everlastingly aware of how it is separating itself from experience, asserting itself, seeking power. In that awareness, if the mind pursues it ever more deeply and extensively without seeking an end, a goal, there comes a state in which the thinker and the thought are one. In that state there is no effort, there is no becoming, there is no desire to change; in that state the ‘me’ is not, for there is a transformation which is not of the mind.”
                                                            {JKTI: The First and Last Freedom, The gap cannot be bridged by any effort, page 140}

It is apparent that the crucial aspect of awareness that has received very little consideration is the nature of this realization of thought.
~~~
   What is the differentiation between awareness and insight?

The issue that arises in the talks concerns the actual nature of insight. Is there a subtle differentiation between awareness, perception (partial or total) and insight? What, in fact, comes first in awareness: does anything come first or is there only direct perception?

The following dialogue that discusses this very subject is from The Transformation of Man (pp. 238-39) :

K:   “Any form of conclusion is detrimental to perception.…
K:   If I am in fear my perception will be very partial. That is a fact.
Q:   But don’t you need perception to end fear?
K:   Ah, but in investigating fear I have a total perception of fear.
Q:   Surely if there is fear, or attachment, even one’s logic would be distorted.
K:   One is frightened - as we said, that distorts perception. But in investigating, , observing, going into fear, understanding it
       profoundly, in delving into it I have perception.
Q:   Are you implying that there are certain things you can do which will make for perceptions? …
K:   I realize I am distorting perception through fear.
Q:   That’s right, then I begin to look at fear.
K:   Investigate it, look into it.
Q:   In the beginning I am also distorting it.
K:   Therefore I am watching every distortion. I am aware of every distortion that is going on.
Q:   But you see, I think the difficulty lies there. How can I investigate when I am distorting?
K:   Wait, just listen. I am afraid and I see fear has made me do something which is a distortion.
Q:   But before I can see that the fear has to fade away.
K:   No, I am observing fear.
Q:   But I cannot observe fear if I am afraid.
K:   Take a fact: you are afraid. You are coscious of it. That means that you become aware of the fact that there is fear. And
       you observe also what that fear has done. Is that clear?
Q:   Yes.
K:   And you look more and more into it. In looking very deeply into it you have an insight.
Q:   I may have an insight.
K:   No, you will have insight, which is quite different.
Q:   What you are saying is that this confusion due to fear is not complete, that it is always open to mankind to have insight.
K:   To one who is investigating, who is observing. …
K:   In observing it … in the very unrolling of it you have a certain insight. That is all we are saying. That insight may be partial.
      Therefore one has to be aware that it is partial. Its action is partial and it may appear complete, so watch it.
       …
Q:   But you are also saying, that as a matter of fact, when you have a distortion, the one thing you can look at is the distortion.
K:   That’s right.
Q:   That factually you have that capacity.
K:   One has that capacity.
Q:   … Could one say that the fear can look at itself?
K:   No, no. One is afraid: in looking at that fear - not having an insight, just watching it - you see what it does, what its action is.
Q:   You mean by looking, being aware of it.
K:   Without any choosing - being aware. …
Q:   But there is still the question: in that moment of fear, I am fear.
K:   How you observe fear matters - whether you observe it as an observer, or the observer is that.
       …
K:   How you observe, how you investigate, that is the real thing. That is, perception can only take place when there is no
       division between the observer and the observed. …”
~~~~&~~~~
There is also the point with awareness that one doesn’t continue with the things that one observes in oneself, one ends them. Negates them as the false; wipes them away. Do we actually do that? Or is it because we only see things in abstraction (ie, through an observer) that we continue with them? Is it that we haven’t actually seen the falseness of them, the danger in continuing with them, because we are only observing them through an observer and the observer does not want them to end?:

“So envy and jealousy are not love and I wipe them out; I don't go on talking about how to wipe them out and in the meantime continue to be envious - I actually wipe them out as the rain washes the dust of many days off a leaf, I just wash them away.”
                                                           {Book of Life Daily Meditations, Sentiment and emotion breed cruelty, May 5 2007}

“… The description is not the fact. You may describe something in the most lovely language, put it in the most spiritual or lyrical words, but the word is not the fact. When you are hungry, the description of food does not feed you. But most of us are satisfied with the description of truth, and the description, the symbol, has taken the place of the factual. To discover whether there is a reality or not, we must be capable of seeing the true as the true, the false as the false, and not wait to be told like a lot of immature children.”
                                                          (JKTI: The description of food does not feed you, Collected Works: Vol. X, page 165}

Have we ever actually seen - deeply - the falseness of anything? What is the action of seeing the falseness of something and then completely dropping it, setting it aside? The mind is so intent on accumulation, craving more and more of everything; this gathering is highly gratifying and gives a measure of so-called 'security'. To drop things appears to run counter to our whole being, to our entire social evolution.

Are we only able to see (or sense) the truth of something but not the falseness of something else? Is this because we don’t really want to drop the false things, but would rather want to continue on with them despite the pain they bring? Is this seeing and dropping the false the real difficulty we have with this thing called awareness?

That we never end anything?
                                                        ~~~~&~~~~
* The full quotation on awareness (see top):
Q:   “Will you please explain what you mean by awareness?

A:   Just simple awareness! Awareness of your judgments, your prejudices, your likes and dislikes. When you see something, that seeing is the outcome of your comparison, condemnation, judgment, evaluation, is it not? When you read something you are judging, you are criticizing, you are condemning or approving. To be aware is to see, in the very moment, this whole process of judging, evaluating, the conclusions, the conformity, the acceptances, the denials.

Now, can one be aware without all that? At present all we know is a process of evaluating, and that evaluation is the outcome of our conditioning, of our background, of our religious, moral and educational influences. Such so-called awareness is the result of our memory, - memory as the `me', the Dutchman. the Hindu, the Buddhist. the Catholic, or whatever it may be. It is the ‘me’, - my memories, my family, my property, my qualities - which is looking judging, evaluating. With that we are quite familiar, if we are at all alert. Now, can there be awareness without all that, without the self? Is it possible just to look without condemnation, just to observe the movement of the mind, one's own mind, without judging, without evaluating, without saying "It is good", or "It is bad"?

The awareness which springs from the self, which is the awareness of evaluation and judgment, always creates duality, the conflict of the opposites - that which is and that which should be. In that awareness there is judgment, there is fear, there is evaluation, condemnation, identification. That is but the awareness of the `me', of the self, of the `I' with all its traditions, memories, and all the rest of it. Such awareness always creates conflict between the observer and the observed, between what I am and what I should be. Now. is it possible to be aware without this process of condemnation, judgment, evaluation? Is it possible to look at myself, whatever my thoughts are, and not condemn, not judge, not evaluate? I do not know if you have ever tried it. It is quite arduous, - because all our training from childhood leads us to condemn or to approve. And in the process of condemnation and approval there is frustration, there is fear, there is a gnawing pain, anxiety, which is the very process of the `me', the self.”
{Collected Works: Volume 9, Amsterdam, 5th Public Talk, 26th May 1955}

~~~~&~~~~
More significant quotations:

“To me there is only perception, which is to see something as false or true immediately.

This immediate perception of what is false and what is true is the essential factor - not the intellect, with its reasoning based upon its cunning,
its knowledge, its commitments. It must sometimes have happened to you that you have seen the truth of something immediately - such as the truth that you cannot belong to anything. That is perception: seeing the truth of something immediately, without analysis, without reasoning, without all the things that the intellect creates in order to postpone perception.

It is entirely different from intuition, which is a word that we use with glibness and ease. To me there is only this direct perception - not reasoning, not calculation, not analysis. You must have the capacity to analyze; you must have a good, sharp mind in order to reason; but a mind that is limited to reason and analysis is incapable of perceiving what is truth.

If you commune with yourself, you will know why you belong, why you have committed yourself; and if you push further, you will see the slavery, the cutting down of freedom, the lack of human dignity which that commitment entails. When you perceive all this instantaneously, you are free; you don't have to make an effort to be free. That is why perception is essential.”
{Book of Life Daily Meditations, Immediate perception, September 14 2007}

“... in answering these questions, I would like to say that I am not persuading you to think along my particular line. We are trying to find the right answer together. I am not answering for you just to accept or deny. We are going to find out together what is true, and that requires an open mind, an intelligent mind, an enquiring mind, an alert mind; not a mind that is so prejudiced that it merely denies, or so eager that it accepts.

And, in answering these questions, one fundamental thing must be borne in mind. It is that they are merely a reflection of the ways of our own thinking, they reveal to us what we think. They should act as a mirror in which we perceive ourselves. After all, these discussions, these talks, have only one purpose, and that is the pursuit of self-knowledge. For, as I said, it is only in knowing ourselves first - deeply, profoundly, not superficially - that we can know truth. And it is extremely arduous to know ourselves deeply, not superficially. It is not a matter of time, but a question of intensity; it is direct perception and experience that are important.”
{The Collected Works, Ojai, 9th Public Talk, 13th August 1949}

“To move away from sorrow is merely to find an answer, a conclusion, an escape; but sorrow continues. Whereas, if you give it your complete attention, which is to be attentive with your whole being, then you will see that there is an immediate perception in which no time is involved, in which there is no effort, no conflict; and it is this immediate perception, this choiceless awareness that puts an end to sorrow.”
{Book of Life Daily Meditations, This choiceless awareness, October 10 2007}