Jiddu Krishnamurti states, “There is no relationship where there is not contact.” He refers to contact very literally. He observes that we do not engage with the facts of our existence so much as we do with the ideas that stem from them and the images that they leave in our minds. Often, our perception comes secondarily to our interpretation, not in sequence, but in consciousness. This ordering is not inherently problematic, nor is it realistic to pursue pure perception. Conflict does arise, however, when we mistake our interpretations for perceptions. When we fail to meditate on the fact of our existence, when we transition from the act of observation to the analysis of the observer, When this occurs, experience is fragmented by thought.
Images are of the mind; they are abstractions from the perceived object. What happens when we consider the image as both object and abstraction? If the image is both object and abstraction, are we better able now to vacillate between the two, to see, perhaps, oneself as both object and image or idea simultaneously? Do we forget our corporeality? Do we understand the difference between perception and interpretation, and do we even believe any longer that there is a notable difference? Or are all of these questions abstract abstractions, removed further still from the object in question? Consider your body. Are you aware of your body as an image more so than as a fact of your existence? Do you observe yourself? And the bodies of others, are they more than images to you? I am not referring to your opinions of other people, but your experience of them as they exist in the present moment, as you relate to them. Is there a difference? And insofar as we are images unto ourselves, do we exist as abstractions when we come into contact?
Krishnamurti asks, "How can one image relate to another?" He asks the question rhetorically. There is no contact between images, so there is no relationship. Consider our relationship, the relationship between you and I. I am, in this moment, an image in your mind, and you, an image in mine. How can one image relate to another? Right now, are we relating? Or are you and I surrendering to the images of ourselves, perhaps? Will these images be resolved when we next meet? Or will our interpretations of one another supercede our perceptions? The “conflict” that Krishnamurti refers to is one that exists in consciousness. It originates in consciousness and is then transferred or projected onto the world of experience. Generally speaking, he refers to the effect of thought upon action and the effect of interpretation upon perception. The “conflict” is the dissonance between what you remember (past) or imagine (future) and what you experience (present). Does it have to be conflicting?