Krishnamurti & the Art of Awakening
A Quiet Space | moderated by Clive Elwell

'There is no opposite'


Displaying posts 1 - 30 of 49 in total
Sun, 19 Jan 2020 #1
Thumb_open-uri20200202-16653-rg2qz5-0 Mina Martini Finland 418 posts in this forum Offline

" There is no opposite. "

Tom quoted the above sentence in another thread.

-Yes, there exists no real opposite. The observer-observed -illusion IS the illusion of opposites, of division.

The observer and the observed are the two sides of the same coin, inseparable from each other.

Awareness of both sides simultaneously and of the nature of the coin itself (which are all one package like is the observer and observed one with the psychological mind) IS freedom from it.

This simultaneous awareness or awareness of the whole of the coin(mind) is not possible within its limits.

Any movement within the limits of the coin, keeps creating both sides of the coin and the coin itself.

Being split up by its very nature, the mind can only move in choice, division.

It is 'this' or 'that', or it may try to unite the two in its vain attempt to see the whole of itself and move quicker in 'this-that-this-that-this-that'..all the while carrying its fragmented nature.

..

Just like any movement from and within the limits of the mind creates both the observer and the observed and the mind itself, in total awareness of its nature both the observer and observed and the psychological mind itself are being undone

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Sun, 19 Jan 2020 #2
Thumb_donna_and_jim_fb_bw Tom Paine United States 3260 posts in this forum Offline

Mina: " There is no opposite. "
Tom quoted the above sentence in another thread.

And I think I also quoted K saying, “There is only what is”, meaning that when I am violent, non-violence, has no meaning...is an illusion. When I hate there is only hate, talk of love is meaningless. I think they were part of the same excerpt.

-Yes, there exists no real opposite. The observer-observed -illusion IS the illusion of opposites, of division.

It’s not totally clear what you’re saying, Mina. Do you mean I may react to fear by trying to be fearless? I feel that fear is separate from myself....from the observer of fear?

The observer and the observed are the two sides of the same coin, inseparable from each other.

Awareness of both sides simultaneously and of the nature of the coin itself (which are all one package like is the observer and observed one with the psychological mind) IS freedom from it.

Yikes, I need coffee before tackling this one! Not denying what you say, but it’s hard to get a hold of.

This simultaneous awareness or awareness of the whole of the coin(mind) is not possible within its limits.

Within thought?

Any movement within the limits of the coin, keeps creating both sides of the coin and the coin itself.

Being split up by its very nature, the mind can only move in choice, division.

Thought again?

It is 'this' or 'that', or it may try to unite the two in its vain attempt to see the whole of itself and move quicker in 'this-that-this-that-this-that'..all the while carrying its fragmented nature.

Makes sense.

..

Just like any movement from and within the limits of the mind creates both the observer and the observed and the mind itself, in total awareness of its nature both the observer and observed and the psychological mind itself are being undone

Will leave this for now. Need to wake up first. Slept very poorly.

Let it Be

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Sun, 19 Jan 2020 #3
Thumb_avatar idiot ? United States 93 posts in this forum Offline

Tom Paine wrote:
Slept very poorly.

I wish you well with getting good sleep. There are lots of internet suggestions on how to overcome insomnia and get good sleep, like making your bedroom pitch black and so on. Here's a fascinating quote from a doctor that was in the NY Times: "Among the more common causes of insomnia are pain, drugs, drug abuse, anxiety, depression, hormone imbalances, interpersonal stress, dietary imbalances, and nutrient deficiencies." If you investigate each item in this doctor's list and consult Dr. Internet (meaning google stuff), you might discover a key to your own sleep problem.

This post was last updated by idiot ? Sun, 19 Jan 2020.

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Mon, 20 Jan 2020 #4
Thumb_donna_and_jim_fb_bw Tom Paine United States 3260 posts in this forum Offline

idiot ? wrote:
If you investigate each item in this doctor's list and consult Dr. Internet (meaning google stuff), you might discover a key to your own sleep problem.

Thanks, id. I agree with that, however I’ve been sleeping pretty well with a natural hormone called melatonin. It’s amazing stuff that really changed my life, but someone near and dear to me has been going through a major health crisis and I was simply too worried to sleep much. Her situation is quite severe, but I will respect her privacy and not say more other than that a horrible medication has made her situation much worse instead of better and I’d like to sue her damn physician. Really stupid decision the doctor made.

Let it Be

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Mon, 20 Jan 2020 #5
Thumb_dm Dan McDermott United States 1718 posts in this forum Offline

Mina Martini wrote:
The observer-observed -illusion IS the illusion of opposites, of division.

The observer and the observed are the two sides of the same coin, inseparable from each other.

Awareness of both sides simultaneously and of the nature of the coin itself (which are all one package like is the observer and observed one with the psychological mind) IS freedom from it.

What is the "nature of the coin" Mina?

This post was last updated by Dan McDermott Mon, 20 Jan 2020.

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Wed, 22 Jan 2020 #6
Thumb_open-uri20200202-16653-rg2qz5-0 Mina Martini Finland 418 posts in this forum Offline

Mina:Awareness of both sides simultaneously and of the nature of the coin itself (which are all one package like is the observer and observed one with the psychological mind) IS freedom from it.

What is the "nature of the coin" Mina?

Dan: Thank you for your question. Yes, I can relate to how those words might need further clarification.

Will try again:

Let us make it clear that, sticking to the coin-analogy, that the 'coin' means the same as the psychological mind or psychological consciousness, ok?

(this is all hard to express because words can never be the one glance of pure percpetion in which the utter simplicity of the truth of all this is seen beyond the words)

Now, the two sides of the coin describe the division between observer and observed.

When I mention understanding the nature of the COIN ITSELF, or the psychological consciousness itself, I mean that there is the realisation that it is not that there are the two sides of the coin and then there is the coin itself, as if some other entity, but that the two sides and the coin itself are the same!!!

This is the same as saying that 'the content of consciousness IS consciousness'

Or

The separation between the observer and observed IS the (psychological) consciousness

...

Now, exactly because the observer-observed illusion always contains the experience of division, it can never see that the both sides of the coin and the coin itself are all one, not divided!

If the observer/observed is acting AT ALL, and thus creating the experience of itself, it will seem that the two sides of the coin are something and 'the whole coin' is something else...there is again division

likewise it cannot understand that the content of consciousness IS consciousness, but experiences that the content is IN consciousness instead!

We could use many other words too..

The observer/observed cannot see that it creates the whole psychological consciousness of man by its any movement but experiences instead that it is partaking in the world which is created independently of its existence

This post was last updated by Mina Martini Wed, 22 Jan 2020.

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Wed, 22 Jan 2020 #7
Thumb_donna_and_jim_fb_bw Tom Paine United States 3260 posts in this forum Offline

Mina: The observer/observed cannot see that it creates the whole psychological consciousness of man by its any movement but experiences instead that it is partaking in the world which is created
independently of its existence

Good point Mina. Will look into this again later...got to head out for work

Let it Be

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Thu, 23 Jan 2020 #8
Thumb_dm Dan McDermott United States 1718 posts in this forum Offline

Mina Martini wrote:
The observer/observed cannot see that it creates the whole psychological consciousness of man by its any movement but experiences instead that it is partaking in the world which is created independently of its existence

Some strange thoughts around this fact you present. There is only one true observer/observed mind and that is the 'mind' of the Creator and his/her Creation... We are creation but our evolved brain enabled us to have a glimpse of the observer/observed mind and we could not resist the temptation to go there. It got us 'thrown out of the garden' and the rest is our sad, suffering history...we created in ourselves, and had maintained, and strengthened through society, culture,etc., a false personal psychological world separating ourselves from everything. My false world from yours. Our relationships with others, nature, ideas, seen through the perspective of this illusory division is one of accommodation at best and violence at worst.

I told you Mina, not to listen to that snake. :)

This post was last updated by Dan McDermott Thu, 23 Jan 2020.

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Fri, 24 Jan 2020 #9
Thumb_open-uri20200202-16653-rg2qz5-0 Mina Martini Finland 418 posts in this forum Offline

Dan,

An interesting reply! -I will come to this later when more time..

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Sat, 25 Jan 2020 #10
Thumb_kinfonet_avatar Clive Elwell New Zealand 5683 posts in this forum Offline

Mina Martini wrote #6:
The observer/observed cannot see that it creates the whole psychological consciousness of man by its any movement but experiences instead that it is partaking in the world which is created independently of its existence

I'm not so sure that it cannot see. If it cannot see its own movement, how is it that we can write about it, discuss it? Does this not suggest that something has been seen?

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Sat, 25 Jan 2020 #11
Thumb_open-uri20200202-16653-rg2qz5-0 Mina Martini Finland 418 posts in this forum Offline

Clive Elwell wrote:
I'm not so sure that it cannot see. If it cannot see its own movement, how is it that we can write about it, discuss it? Does this not suggest that something has been seen?

Mina: Can only talk of what is happening here, and saying that yes indeed, seeing is taking place. When the seeing is one with wholeness (I am saying that I am not talking about thought looking at thought in the observer-observed-division which is limited seeing through the conditioned and dimmed eyes of an observer) there is no subject or object in it, so it never turns to 'something that has been seen' in the sense of some idea having been formed in the mind.

So the observer-observed, which IS an experinence of division by itself, cannot see that there is no real division! The SEEING WHOLLY of the truth of what is just being expressed in words, does not happen BY thought, (and that is the only way thought can move) but in another dimension in which thought dissolves.

But note, and this has been written lately in the forum, it is not that the seeing happens outside of thought either! There is no outer factor! Again, it is the observer-observed division that experiences inner and outer and their separation.

So, not BY the division, and yet not separate from the division.

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Sat, 25 Jan 2020 #12
Thumb_spock Douglas MacRae-Smith France 212 posts in this forum Offline

Mina Martini wrote:
it is not that the seeing happens outside of thought either! There is no outer factor!

Confusing ! Sounds like there is no consciousness outside thought.

Thought may be a product of human consciousness. But surely there can be attention without thought? I Wonder if thought is even possible where there is attention.

Look, see, let go

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Sat, 25 Jan 2020 #13
Thumb_donna_and_jim_fb_bw Tom Paine United States 3260 posts in this forum Offline

Douglas MacRae-Smith wrote:
Confusing ! Sounds like there is no consciousness outside thought.

Right. How could I be aware that I was thinking if there was only thinking and no other factor? How could I be aware of the tree?

Let it Be

This post was last updated by Tom Paine Sat, 25 Jan 2020.

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Sat, 25 Jan 2020 #14
Thumb_donna_and_jim_fb_bw Tom Paine United States 3260 posts in this forum Offline

Mina Martini wrote:
But note, and this has been written lately in the forum, it is not that the seeing happens outside of thought either! There is no outer factor!

But just above that statement you said it happens in another “dimension”.

Let it Be

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Sat, 25 Jan 2020 #15
Thumb_open-uri20200202-16653-rg2qz5-0 Mina Martini Finland 418 posts in this forum Offline

Tom Paine wrote:
Confusing ! Sounds like there is no consciousness outside thought.

Right. How could I be aware that I was thinking if there was only thinking and no other factor? How could I be aware of the tree?

Mina: Neither of you has understood correctly...will come back to look further into this when there is an opportunity..

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Sat, 25 Jan 2020 #16
Thumb_dm Dan McDermott United States 1718 posts in this forum Offline

Tom Paine wrote:
How could I be aware of the tree?

Leave the 'I' out for a moment. The eye 'sees' the tree. The hand 'touches' the tree. The senses perceive the object. When 'thought' says "That is a tree", it has named it, recognized it, perhaps has knowledge of it...but when thought says 'I am aware of the tree, it has, by identifying itself with the senses, created the illusion of the 'Self'.

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Sat, 25 Jan 2020 #17
Thumb_stringio Huguette . Canada 832 posts in this forum Offline

Douglas MacRae-Smith wrote at #12:
Confusing ! Sounds like there is no consciousness outside thought.

This is consciousness as we know it.

https://jkrishnamurti.org/content/there-evoluti...
JK: You are your name. You are your form, body. You are all the reactions and actions. You are the belief, you are the fear, you are the suffering and pleasure. You are all that.
...
DB: But you see it is not obvious. When you say I am that, do you mean that I am that and cannot be otherwise?
JK: No. At present you are that. It can be totally otherwise.

This post was last updated by Huguette . Sat, 25 Jan 2020.

Sign in to recommend  This post has been recommended by 1 reader
Back to Top
Sun, 26 Jan 2020 #18
Thumb_open-uri20200202-16653-rg2qz5-0 Mina Martini Finland 418 posts in this forum Offline

Tom Paine wrote:
But note, and this has been written lately in the forum, it is not that the seeing happens outside of thought either! There is no outer factor!

But just above that statement you said it happens in another “dimension”.

Let it Be

Mina:

I can elaborate further but unless there is a moment of total silence of the mind, one is left with a bundle or words I am afraid..

When saying that 'seeing does not happen outside of thought', what is pointed out is that thought itself, when split into observer and observed, is also split into inside and outside. So it can only understand anything in a divided way and also only conceptually, never actually. When saying tat seeing does not happen outside of thought, it is meant that it is never a reaction of the observer/observed. (observer as 'inside' , observed as 'outside')

When talking about seeing the whole of thought, we talk of awareness which has no inside or outside, no division. This is the 'other dimension' of wholeness. It undoes thought, negates it, but never separates itself from thought because of its nature as wholeness!

So, 'the other dimension' and 'not outside of thought' are really in essence pointing to the same.

This post was last updated by Mina Martini Sun, 26 Jan 2020.

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Sun, 26 Jan 2020 #19
Thumb_open-uri20200202-16653-rg2qz5-0 Mina Martini Finland 418 posts in this forum Offline

Douglas MacRae-Smith wrote:
Confusing ! Sounds like there is no consciousness outside thought.

Thought may be a product of human consciousness. But surely there can be attention without thought? I Wonder if thought is even possible where there is attention.

Mina: I wonder if my reply no.18 could shed more light on your comments...

Sign in to recommend  This post has been recommended by 1 reader
Back to Top
Sun, 26 Jan 2020 #20
Thumb_open-uri20200202-16653-rg2qz5-0 Mina Martini Finland 418 posts in this forum Offline

Dear Dan,

Dan:Some strange thoughts around this fact you present. There is only one true observer/observed mind and that is the 'mind' of the Creator and his/her Creation...

Mina: It came to me after reading the above that in truth the Creator (source, God, awareness, unknown, intelligence, no word in essence) and the Creation (known, manifested world)are inseparable as the source and its expressions, as a Father and a Child...

Now, when thought fell from this grace (for whatever reason, I like your 'could not resist the temptation to go there and was thrown out of the garden) and started looking at its image of itself thus turning away from its true nature as both a creature and also not separate from the creator, that is when the observer and observed were born.

What is interesting is that this very division of observer and observed tries to imitate the Creator and Creation, to replace it, but it can never change the fact that it is the reflection of the real, not the actual. Also, this false division cannot change the fact that in taking the reflection for the real, it is bound to see everything in a distorted manner just like a mirror distorts what we see by reflecting an image back.

Therefore a clear mirror that we can be for one another, out of love and only, is empty from all reflection. It is in that undistorted mirror that we can see ourselves as we truly are and re-discover the Garden of Eden. This is the return to our true nature, the return to innocence.

in silence
m

P.S The snake is an illusion fundamentally and it does not exist in total awareness. No, not listening to it if it arises. I mean not following its dark pathways. There is always a possibility of its appearance however since there can be no certainty in awareness,a pcyhological reaction may occur but the deeper one is rooted in awareness, the less power any snake can have...on the contrary, if it arises, it fundamentally only takes one in deeper awareness..this happens when it is totally embraced, not moved an inch away from, not reacted to by more thought..that is the blessing at the heart of any challenge...Look at the snake in the eyes, welcome it totally, take it into your loving embrace, face it directly and you will find only thin air in your embrace...

This post was last updated by Mina Martini Sun, 26 Jan 2020.

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Sun, 26 Jan 2020 #21
Thumb_spock Douglas MacRae-Smith France 212 posts in this forum Offline

The fall from grace episode in Genesis seems quite clear.

Suffering is due to our gaining knowledge of Good and Evil. Desire/Aversion of course concurrent or dependant on sense of self.

Look, see, let go

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Sun, 26 Jan 2020 #22
Thumb_dm Dan McDermott United States 1718 posts in this forum Offline

Mina Martini wrote:
The snake is an illusion fundamentally and it does not exist in total awareness. No, not listening to it if it arises. I mean not following its dark pathways. There is always a possibility of its appearance however since there can be no certainty in awareness,a pcyhological reaction may occur but the deeper one is rooted in awareness, the less power any snake can have...on the contrary, if it arises, it fundamentally only takes one in deeper awareness..this happens when it is totally embraced, not moved an inch away from, not reacted to by more thought..that is the blessing at the heart of any challenge.

And yet it is the 'snake' as thought, who projects a 'follower' but there is no follower, only thought itself...and so it must embrace itself, its own fearsome images, not create an 'embracer' apart from itself as a 'conquerer' for that just perpetuates the illusion of itself as more than just thought, out of place, and making mischief.

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Sun, 26 Jan 2020 #23
Thumb_kinfonet_avatar Clive Elwell New Zealand 5683 posts in this forum Offline

Mina Martini wrote #11:
So the observer-observed, which IS an experinence of division by itself, cannot see that there is no real division!

I remember that this is brought up in an "Ending of Time" dialogue. K gives tremendous importance to it - this perception changes everything, he says. And of course that must be true.

But as it is now, the brain is a 'dividing machine', an instrument of separation. Except if the IS no real division, one must say 'apparent separation'. Why would the brain "choose" separation over wholeness? Why did it do so originally, and why does it continue to do so? It seems to have convinced itself that separation is the way of security. Yet even an intellectual consideration reveals that this is not so. So why are caught in this compulsion?

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Mon, 27 Jan 2020 #24
Thumb_open-uri20200202-16653-rg2qz5-0 Mina Martini Finland 418 posts in this forum Offline

Dan:And yet it is the 'snake' as thought, who projects a 'follower' but there is no follower, only thought itself...and so it must embrace itself, its own fearsome images, not create an 'embracer' apart from itself as a 'conquerer' for that just perpetuates the illusion of itself as more than just thought, out of place, and making mischief.

Mina: Exactly so Dan. -When I wrote about 'not following the snake's dark pathways', it was said in full awareness of the fact that the snake itself is a creation of 'the leader and the follower and their imagined separation'. -By saying what I said I meant that when/if this psychological reality arises in oneself, it is through staying (no one to stay) in total awareness of what is happening inwardly that the 'leader/follower-snake-limitation is not continued in oneself. In the light of awareness it dissipates and dissolves. That was meant.

Thank you.

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Mon, 27 Jan 2020 #25
Thumb_spock Douglas MacRae-Smith France 212 posts in this forum Offline

Clive Elwell wrote:
Why would the brain "choose" separation over wholeness?

Because progess and the attainment of goals are tantalizing promises.

Because it is effective : We've made it to the moon, we manage to feed billions, we have Pocket computers and future tech promises immortality and happiness - All this despite the fact that happiness is no longer rising and that the world we are making shows signs of collapsing Under its own activity.

And because there are no champions of mystery and emptiness. (God, religion and poetry are dead)

Look, see, let go

This post was last updated by Douglas MacRae-Smith Mon, 27 Jan 2020.

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Mon, 27 Jan 2020 #26
Thumb_open-uri20200202-16653-rg2qz5-0 Mina Martini Finland 418 posts in this forum Offline

Dear Clive,

Clive:>But as it is now, the brain is a 'dividing machine', an instrument of separation. Except if the IS no real division, one must say 'apparent separation'. Why would the brain "choose" separation over wholeness? Why did it do so originally, and why does it continue to do so? It seems to have convinced itself that separation is the way of security. Yet even an intellectual consideration reveals that this is not so. So why are caught in this compulsion?

Mina: I am interested in finding out fundamentally, here and now, what is really going on in this or that brain as we relate to each other, in relationship.

There is the full realisation of the fact that in this specific brain (or that over there or any other brain) is contained the nature of all brains.

It is acutely lived and sensed that what is happening in this brain here is happening in the world because indeed we are one.

Therefore I am not interested in speculating about 'the human brain' in any abstract manner, or talking intellectually about the possible reasons why the brain is a dividing machine. The human brain is here to be observed.

The focus here remains in the very ending of this division, from moment to moment, through complete self-understanding instead, in this very brain.

...

I do not know if you sense the gist of what I am pointing to.

When you talk of the human brain as if it was something other than 'your own' brain in question, it is an abstraction for me already. But perhaps you ARE describing your own reality, how else could it be...

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Mon, 27 Jan 2020 #27
Thumb_dm Dan McDermott United States 1718 posts in this forum Offline

Mina Martini wrote:
In the light of awareness it dissipates and dissolves.

It does indeed.

Sign in to recommend  This post has been recommended by 1 reader
Back to Top
Wed, 29 Jan 2020 #28
Thumb_kinfonet_avatar Clive Elwell New Zealand 5683 posts in this forum Offline

Mina Martini wrote:
When you talk of the human brain as if it was something other than 'your own' brain in question, it is an abstraction for me already. But perhaps you ARE describing your own reality, how else could it be...

How else indeed?

Very interesting Mina. It is a fact that this brain is ‘part of’ the human brain. Or one could even say this brain IS the human brain. But this fact cannot be used as an excuse. It does not mean that “I” am not responsible for what goes on in that brain. In fact it might be the perception makes me MORE responsible, it feels that way at times. It certainly means that I cannot be merely concerned with “my own” personal circumstances, comfort. I say that not from a sense of morality, but seeing that if I treat something as having an independent existence when it actually does not, that MUST bring about problems and illusion.

I feel i am concerned with real problems, meeting real issues. And I feel we are basically together in our perceptions. You may have taken steps that I have not taken. I may be mistaken, and perhaps you could point out specifically where you think I am speculating. I do see as I write that “this brain” IS “a dividing machine”, and I see this is a very real problem. To be observed, as you say.

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Wed, 29 Jan 2020 #29
Thumb_open-uri20200202-16653-rg2qz5-0 Mina Martini Finland 418 posts in this forum Offline

Mina: Thank you love.

I will try afresh to elaborate on the gist of my previous reply.

...yes, I guess I am saying that to look into or talk about the collective, without fully understanding the specific or the individual brain first and last, is moving away from the core issue into speculation.

As is seen here, there is only the individual brain to be fully understood exactly because the collective is one with it, not separate. For the collective to change the individual must change.

You cannot go anywhere else but in yourself to understand the whole of the collective, because it is contained in the individual.

This is why I felt necessary to bring the talk at the level of the 'specific brains' :-) exclusively..it is clear that they are the same as human brain but the problem is that there can be talk of the collective without understanding fully the nature of the individual, and that is the point where subtle excuses, conceptualisations, intellectualisations and places to hide mentally can come into play, however subtly.

We may start talking 'generally', as if presenting a 'bigger picture', but if the starting point is a confused human being in turmoil for example, that is what is calling our attention, nothing else..

What I say is NOT separating the individual and the collective, choosing the individual over the collective etc, but it is only pointing to what is seen to be the right order between the two (which are one)

The only real issue and interest is at the actual level, at least here...what is happening in myself with my everyday connections and life.. ...what is the quality of my relating to others..what is my day to day actuality..here on kinfonet or anywhere else...since what I am the world is also..

It is only in a specific brain, in 'my' brain where a total transformation is possible.

If there is looking at another in total awareness, there is understanding the other's ways of behaviour in intelligence, but this is unlikely to mutate the brain cells inside another skull..unless the intelligence is shared and a fundamental change takes place, but even then, both do it for themselves...(not talking of a doer)

This is why the only real need is to keep observing oneself without judgement. Any movement away from this living actuality means replacing it with speculation.

This post was last updated by Mina Martini Wed, 29 Jan 2020.

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Wed, 29 Jan 2020 #30
Thumb_donna_and_jim_fb_bw Tom Paine United States 3260 posts in this forum Offline

if I treat something as having an independent existence when it actually does not, that MUST bring about problems and illusion.

Or, most important, ‘someone’. Good point, Clive! This is the meaning of ‘You are the world’, isn’t it?

Let it Be

This post was last updated by Tom Paine Wed, 29 Jan 2020.

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Displaying posts 1 - 30 of 49 in total
To quote a portion of this post in your reply, first select the text and then click this "Quote" link.

(N.B. Be sure to insert an empty line between the quoted text and your reply.)