Krishnamurti & the Art of Awakening
Discussion Forums

George Lanroh's Forum Activity | 271 posts in 3 forums


Forum: General Discussion Mon, 21 Sep 2015
Topic: Stop!

Hi Max

Yes, but as seen here you have never been any image you have identified with but you and the awareness are one the reason awareness can't be negated. As seen here.

Forum: General Discussion Mon, 21 Sep 2015
Topic: Stop!

max greene wrote: George,

There is no individual entity with awareness. The individual is a product of the brain's thinking. In the present moment, can there be other than unity?

No, unity is the absolute/truth. But you and I part and that's ok regarding ones true nature. I say awareness is the constant, Krishnamurti's eternal. Awareness and ones self are not two separate things. It is you as awareness which gets mixed up in idea's concepts and beliefs when really, in truth awareness is nothing more then the quality of awareness its self. You can't negate awareness because you are awareness. As seen here reincarnation is nothing more then awareness dropping one false identity and picking up a new one. I say reincarnation because awareness is the constant between ever changing identities and awareness even exist with no identity or between identities. To awaken as seen here is to find ones self being this awareness and coming to the understanding that beyond being the quality of awareness one is moving into time and picking up and using a avatar. I say awareness can become aware that it is using time instead of time using awareness which is the outcome of being unconscious of ones true nature.

I see your saying awareness has no entity, yes and no. Yes your right because without the movement into time awareness is nobody. And no because awareness its self is an entity and is the one speaking to you now. Any and all other images I may present to you are images, fabrications but through consciousness hopefully at least a tool.

Just sharing ones sense here max for your entertainment or to feel and sense if it rings true to you.

Forum: General Discussion Mon, 21 Sep 2015
Topic: Stop!

Max wrote: you see awareness as the self.

George: yes that's right Max :) l also see awareness original state as being timeless as far as identity. Are views are very close, a hairs difference. Yet maybe that hair is enough to keep one in time even though there is only traps within the dreams of time. When awareness realizes this it/we are out of the trap we were never really in. All this by cell phone hope it post OK :)

Forum: General Discussion Tue, 22 Sep 2015
Topic: Stop!

Robert Neilson wrote: This resonated a lot with me and I would go so far to say that being a "thinker" heavy person I have come upon something like this. Is this not what some philosophers call transcendence?

Yes, I sense also that it has been associated with the phrase and meaning transcendence.

Robert, just my feelings on some of the things you said. With transcendence taking place it no longer matters who you were or what you went through as a child or young person, you as the awareness are now timeless and have totally step out of any and all identities in which maybe in the past you have gotten caught up in, identified with. Those memory may serve you to better understand now your fellow man but you as the awareness are no longer limited by such attachments to accumulated identities. As Krishnamurti hoped for you, with your letting go of the past you are now unconditionally free.

For most of us this seems impossible to let go to such an extent. Who can't let go? The very false identity you should be letting go of. I feel its important to remember that there is no identity which is not clothing for the lack of better words for the invisible man called awareness. As awareness it is felt here that we can become and remain conscious of the avatar we are playing in the present moment. THe difference between heaven and hell is our consciousness or unconsciousness of our involvement with psychological time.

Please I am just sharing my sense on things for you to take a look at. Many see thing differently.

Forum: General Discussion Tue, 22 Sep 2015
Topic: Stop!

Tom Paine wrote: Isn't any separate one an invention of thought...a product of the fear itself? Fear is trying to escape from the pain it causes by pretending that it is awareness?

Tom

In truth as seen here there is no self who is fearful outside our false identifications with a self image which is fearful. Why escape what we are not in truth? The fearful one is like a dream we are having, a dream of who we are in the dimension of time. To create a new self image which will transcend our fearful self image is still to be in the dimension of psychological time. What I am speaking about here is awareness/you/us becoming aware of the field of time and coming to the understanding (that to be more then awareness its self) we have to cheat, tell a little lie and present consciously our present image we are using. And to quote Krishnamurti: "The word is not the thing" or in the case of awareness the image is an extension of ourselves but it is not awareness which in essence is timeless/formless.

So yes as seen here Krishnamurti's statement is true, anger and ourselves are not two separate things. Awareness which has no form of its own is appearing as anger or sadness or jealousy or one of countless identifications. The one thing it doesn't appear as is unassociated, unidentified with time awareness. Tom to me awareness is not a thing as much as it is a quality of a presence. What awareness is and does is the same thing. In essence you as awareness is the light of the world, its a quality of illumination which can become self aware. Because it has no form of its own outside its illumination quality we had to negate every false idea we had about ourselves and hopefully notice, that even without a self image we are still there/here. We are the only constant while all concepts, identifications and beliefs come and go. We are Krishnamurti's eternal its self. We did not know that it was ourselves that we were looking for.

How can an invisible, intangible, formless quality of existence see its self accept for seeing what its not. Seeing that in the absence of all false identifications we as awareness still are. For awareness conscious of its nature, identity becomes a non-concrete address, not unlike the invisible man putting on a robe to be seen. Identity becomes a means to an end, the end being a creative expression. But like any artist with a used canvas all future paintings are limited by the artist ability to wipe clean his canvas. The danger is always in the organization of the image of the artist. It all boils down to conscious or unconscious becoming. A true artist always comes right out of emptiness being that awareness has no self separate from the self one is playing. It is here where a leap of understanding must take place. Krishnamurti said the light can't be past to another, but it can be past to an awareness waking up to the fact that without an image its invisible/timeless.

Tom, I will get hell for what I just wrote but I feel its important to try to express what one has come upon. So far nothing comes close to shaking this seeing. Shaking what? Psychologically speaking, self, world? All is time. Only awareness is not :)

Forum: General Discussion Tue, 22 Sep 2015
Topic: Stop!

max greene wrote: As I see it, there is no dropper. There is only awareness itself, no entity at all, at the moment of awareness. That awareness is understanding and choiceless action.

Max

Yes, what you wrote above is what is seen here. You and I seem to get stuck on a strange phenomenon. If I was to say I am awareness that is duality, there is only awareness, and yet awareness is I :)

Forum: General Discussion Tue, 22 Sep 2015
Topic: Stop!

Richard Nolet wrote: When you say Georges that awareness is I, it can be confusing, since we generaly use the expression the I as the self. You really mean that ? Saying that awareness is I...or the I, the self...can you clarified ? In a not to much words, if possible :-)

Richard sorry about my long winded replies, its just very difficult to put into words what I am trying to express :)

Notice the sense 'I am' within. That sense is coming from the awareness which inhabits the body. Your parents slapped a label on their baby in your case Richard. They were slapping a label on a body maybe? In truth they were slapping a label on you the awareness. Without awareness its lights out. When we negate the false, peel the onion, with the last peel removed there is nothing (emptiness). Yet, you are still there. Unassociated awareness, the 'I am' with no additional identity. As always I like to say this is the experience here. I'm not trying to be an authority I am only attempting to share a realization.

Forum: General Discussion Wed, 23 Sep 2015
Topic: Stop!

Max,Tom

Can you sense being aware? Are you and that sense of awareness two separate things? Is there anything more real, more constant while all your other identifications have come and gone. Really, can you separate this sense of awareness from the sense I am? "I am" is the only true thing as awareness you can say about yourself, all else is extra and accumulated. As seen here.

I would like to add my message is getting missed do to my abilities to express my message.

Forum: General Discussion Wed, 23 Sep 2015
Topic: Stop!

Hi Pavil

I find this just a question and answer discussion with members questioning what they might not completely agree with. It's good enquiry by having all concerned reflect, feel if it resonates or not.

Forum: General Discussion Wed, 23 Sep 2015
Topic: Stop!

Pavil Davidov wrote: That's fine George. Nice to see you posting again, by the way. Apols if my comments come over as a little harsh sometimes. Applying a little gravel helps the traction, sometimes.

Hi Pavil

Thanks for the warm welcome. I was just clarifying my intentions and what I sensed other members were in the spirit of, a bit of intense enquiry :) I must admit at time I appear to be acting like an authoritarian and not starting from ( I don't know ). In truth I am trying to share a certain seeing that I am having a devil of a time pointing to.

How can it be that there is something that exist (awareness) which exist and at the same time is by nature timeless and without form? The sense here Pavil is awareness adopts time to crawl out of its invisibility and we call that becoming and it is in a sense. Its actually a very beautiful phenomenon when it happens to awareness consciously but becomes a mess full of pain and suffering when its not. This whole movement into time and back out through negation is seen here as a means for what is invisible accept for its quality to see its self by exposing its nature.

I look forward like the rest of us to negate all escapes in till we can intuit both our quality and nature of our existence. To see the unseeable through the way it moves :)

Forum: General Discussion Thu, 05 Nov 2015
Topic: The reality of a tree.

Maybe someone can help me. In a conversation with a friend regarding the nature of physical reality they said physical reality is an illusion. My thoughts are the meaning of physical reality is a projection but its fact of existence that of it being not of thought is also a reality. The word is not the thing yet the thing still is. Can anyone point out text where Krishnamurti spoke about this topic directly?

Forum: General Discussion Fri, 06 Nov 2015
Topic: The reality of a tree.

max greene wrote: Welcome back, George.

Sorry I can't help you with citations and research, but as I see it, the physical world is a reality in the unfolding present moment -- evolution is a reality. That remark is for your friend.

Hi Max

Thanks for the welcome back and your insights. I am spending more time in the shadows of the forum stopping in almost everyday to read the many postings. Recently I have notice a quite approach where I may spend a week in reflection of an enquiry pays off more for this normally projecting mind :)

Forum: General Discussion Fri, 06 Nov 2015
Topic: The reality of a tree.

Tom Paine wrote: The friend asked K. something like "what is reality?" or something similar, like "is the physical world real?", and K. said, and I paraphrase, 'Certainly your little dog is real.

Hi Tom

Yes, my/your dog is real. I read in a book somewhere that to be enlightened or awakened all one must do is to imagine that one has just died. In one's death allow to drop away all that thought has put together in its roll of artificially manufacturing meaning upon the unknown. I must agree with Krishnamurti that the little dog remains after the curtain of thought falls down and before me I am left with a living mystery. When the mystery of anything becomes obscured by the rise of thoughts only attention I sense will preserve the truth of the observed, truth? Yes, I really don't know what it is but my projection of meaning to it is the reason my world and myself are not two separate things. :)

Forum: General Discussion Fri, 06 Nov 2015
Topic: The reality of a tree.

Jean Gatti wrote: It seems to me that what is unreal is the idea of a world of separate objects and people, this very idea of separation between a 'me' and 'others' is illusional ... and this very idea is called 'self' (or 'ego') ...

Hi Jean

Yes this was the discussion between myself and my friend who has studies Krishnamurti and other teaching for many years. I wanted to be careful in my conversation with her and not begin from a position of accumulated unconscious psychological time. What I have been discovering is meaning is coming from myself as the source whether by conditioned authority or conscious or unconscious projection. Objects and in some cases objects which host sentient presence of being are all real not dependent on thought. It is their meaning and the lifting them out of the unknown through conceptualization that points to illusion.

Forum: General Discussion Fri, 06 Nov 2015
Topic: The reality of a tree.

Sean Hen wrote: We never see a tree, we see the tree through the image that we have of it, the concept of that tree; but the concept, the knowledge, the experience, is entirely different from the actual tree. Here one is surrounded by a great many trees, fortunately, and if you look around you, as the speaker is going on with the subject of seeing, if you actually look at it, you will find how extraordinary difficult it is to see it all, so that no image, no screen, comes between the seeing and the actual fact."

Hi Sean

Thanks for the reply, all the replies have been helpful in my own self enquiry into the nature of the real and the unreal. The screen being lifted or the curtain being opened is a most difficult task because we so habitually fill the void of the unknown with conceptualization. But it is here where the veil falls across our face and the rubber meets the road. And its here where my enquiry continues as I watch thought paint meaning to an unknown world.

Forum: General Discussion Fri, 06 Nov 2015
Topic: The reality of a tree.

Pavil Davidov wrote: The tree has not been put together by thought, but it is a reality.

Hi Pavil

Yes, " The tree has not been put together by thought, but it is a reality." "An illusion is a reality". Both are reality yet an illusion is an intangible where as the tree remains when stripped of any image applied to it.

Pavil, your quote and the many other replies have lead me to some deep reflection upon the neutrality of all things and my own place in manufacturing a world and self image which does not exist separate from me. I have to laugh at myself because in writing a response to you I had a wish to be awake more then I am asleep. In reflection now I see the wish as a goodnight kiss with me on the way of dreaming I am a person who is sleeping most of the time when really I am no one at all. Being awake is to be no-one/no-thing. Did I hear holy ghost? Ok everyone let me have it! :)

Forum: General Discussion Fri, 06 Nov 2015
Topic: The reality of a tree.

Tom Paine wrote: Are you sure you worded this right George? Isn't "meaning"/idea(s) what makes my world separate from myself?

Hi Tom

My sense is: It is separate only because we do not realize we are the source of the projected meaning of our world view and the meaning of every item that comes before the observer. We are even the projector of the image of the observer/ourselves. Hence the reason the observer is the observed, we are projecting our own self image. I could be missing something just my sense on this topic.

Forum: General Discussion Fri, 06 Nov 2015
Topic: The reality of a tree.

Tom Paine wrote: When I see the tree or flower free from any and all imagery/meaning, then it's not separate from what I am.observer is observed. Inner is not divided from outer. Or am I deluding myself?

Hi Tom

I don't feel your duding yourself at all. The observer as seen here when pristine is a perfect unblemished reflection of "what is". Could one say the blemishes, the smudges in which accumulate on the mirror represent the accumulated self, the image of the observer separate from the actual true and pristine isolated image/actuality.

Forum: General Discussion Fri, 06 Nov 2015
Topic: The reality of a tree.

Peter Kesting wrote: If we assume matter to be real.

Hi Peter

I agree that everything is made up of atoms and all that, mostly space with the movement of atoms giving the illusion of a more solid reality.

But I am also saying the ground of that reality, the one of objects before touched by thought has an existence unrelated with thought. I say this because even a baby taken out momentary in the rain to go from one building to another when struck by a rain drop for the first time has just encountered the unknown. The baby knows that an event happened but to what just happened the baby doesn't know, it will be education that that will bring the authority of meaning to the rain. My point is that there is an unknowable ground where atoms operate giving shape and form to physical object before being touched and conceptualized by thought. When this particular brain comes to an end like before it came into existence the tree, rivers and mountains will continue whither one human on earth is left or there is no human beings on earth. I was and am very interested in the nature of reality coming down to the quantum level yet also see a dimension earlier then thought yet also could be responsible for thought.

Forum: General Discussion Fri, 06 Nov 2015
Topic: The reality of a tree.

Tom Paine wrote: Yes, for sure, George....the blemishes = the separate observer...'me'...thought/idea/concept/belief(I may believe that the sun is the god, Apollo, as the ancient Greeks did...or believe the tree is a just an ordered bunch of molecules and atoms, as the scientist may believe)/'me'.

This has turned out to be a most intriguing thread :)

Forum: General Discussion Fri, 06 Nov 2015
Topic: The reality of a tree.

Pavil Davidov wrote: I find it interesting that with an illusion, the object is there, it is actual, but something about the relation between that object (a tree, for example) and the mind that perceives it, skews the perception. It is interesting because it shows just how much appearance is not to be taken as a given but seen as an aspect of relationship, between the object and the mind that perceives it.

Yes, seeing this with you Pavil. Interesting on this thread is how deep do we allow the influence of the observer to go. Krishnamurti use to say that we must keep doubt on a leash. This leash does it also lend its self to the nature of physical reality? Do we upon investigation say that there is no place thought has not infected/touched? Or do we keep thought on a leash and say it does not create physical reality it only applies an artificial meaning to it?

A thought comes to mind, where else :) The thought is if the observer is only the past, accumulated blemishes on the mirror of reflection, then what is responsible for the existence of the mirror? :)

Forum: General Discussion Sat, 07 Nov 2015
Topic: The reality of a tree.

Pavil Davidov wrote: So, in the metaphor, which K used numerous times, what does the dog represent; what does the leash represent and what does 'letting go' represent?

First let me say thank you for all the good text.

The dog to me is imagination and the leash represents keeping in mind ones self as the source of imagination. Letting go represents to me ones ability to remain anew even in the face of temporary accumulations of conceptual realities. As Krishnamurti in your quotes pointed out in my own words: Maintaining sanity when the walls of illusions are falling down around us ( We stop believing in our currant dream ) and we know the up and coming dream is no more then a redecoration. Can society hold together without a projected template ? :)

Forum: General Discussion Sun, 08 Nov 2015
Topic: The reality of a tree.

Sudhir sharma wrote: Thinking on or about this issue is just that...thinking...no more, no less:)

Hi Sudhir, been on the road today the reason for the delayed response :)

Yes, thinking on or about this issue is just that ...thinking... no more, no less. Yes but this is the matter regarding to any and all subject matter in regards to being inside the circle bordered by psychological time. But also regarding psychological time isn't everything regarding the human condition associated, bordered and circled by psychological time? Sudhir, at this moment anything associated with the sense of self being that the self is time all associated with the self must be time. So in that sense the question of the reality of a tree in essence has no qualifying entity to ask such a question. More and more I find myself being an anomaly, an aberration, the bending of the truth that there is no such thing as a separate self from object reality. A very strange thing to find out that one is the outcome of smoke and mirrors and this feeling of suffering a foot/leg cast for another three weeks is all an illusion to an artificial self that does not really exist. By the way thank you old friend for asking about me, it does an old non-existing being good :)

Sudhir sharma wrote: George Lanroh wrote: Recently I have notice a quite approach where I may spend a week in reflection of an enquiry pays off more...

Sudhir sharma wrote: This may be true for the post reflections new accumulations in memory, but is it transforming anything?

:) Is there anything to be transformed :) Yes, going slower gives one the opportunity to tie the question and answer together, and to see them from the point of view of existing only within the framework of a psychological world that would support both question and answer. The question and answer must be structured to make sense by being supported by countless unconscious thought structures.

Forum: General Discussion Sun, 08 Nov 2015
Topic: The reality of a tree.

Pavil Davidov wrote: This one is lovely:

"If you are so inclined, if you have so perceived the truth or the falseness that exists in mythology, and most religions are myths, which have held together people for a certain period, because that is the function of all myths to hold society together for as long as it is possible, and when that myth is exploded society begins to break up, which is what is happening now. We have lived on myths of various kinds, and they have held man in a particular culture and when that myth ceases to exist there is no raison d'?tre to continue, except along our own particular tendency, characteristic, pleasures and so on, which is exactly what is happening in the world now. Nobody believes in anything anymore - thank the Lord! Which has its misfortune because doubt is a good thing - to doubt, but it must be kept on a leash. And to hold it intelligently on a leash is to enquire, but to doubt everything has no meaning." Fourth Public Talk at Brockwood Park September 1972

So, in the metaphor, which K used numerous times, what does the dog represent; what does the leash represent and what does 'letting go' represent?

I just wanted to take a moment and thank you for the quotes you pasted for me and also thank everyone for the many replies. I was enjoying very much this morning going back over the replies and coming upon the one mentioned above one more time.

The dog? The dog to me is the intellect, the knife of the mind which divides the world into opposites.

The leash? Attention to maintaining a tether to observer from keeping in mind that any tether has the cause and effect of building an artificial structure which for this moment is holding one from the abyss of non-existence :) Here Pavil I would like to add that it is the opinion and the experience here that jumping off the cliff of the known if braved leads one only to the perpetual state of free fall but not non-existence. Still one is there to imagine, to buy into an artificial tether, a shelf where one can stand with ones own leash in ones hand :)

Letting go? Is the return to free fall where dog and leash, where letting go are all seen as part of a mighty fine dream, where the dreamer in truth has no place to hang his hat, no place to call home, being the dreamer belongs to the dream. And the dreamer of the dreamer belongs to the homeless. We all have trouble with this don't we? We all have trouble maintaining our homeless original nature.

I sense we can intuit what it is not to have a story about ourselves. To be at rest knowing that there is no story that is the true story, that all stories are fabrications written over an eternal mystery. An old friend here once said: " God looks at you through the same eyes you look at him" This to me is the closes answer to this mystery being that non-duality is a fact.

Forum: General Discussion Mon, 09 Nov 2015
Topic: The reality of a tree.

Sudhir sharma wrote: George, when one is seeing something happening in the world of time/psychological world, then a reaction to what is being seen is inevitable. Such a reaction gives continuity to the psychological world and it is the norm for human beings. So, what is your reason fro underlying this seeing that, to my mind, is taking place within and is being distorted by the psychological field?

It is in watching the whole thing unfold which includes our reaction that we come upon thought/self redecorating in its many different forms. Sudhir, what reaction, what fork in the road is not tainted by the self/thought reinventing its self? Even any effort not to invent is a reaction and within the field of psychological time, the self becoming. Sudhir, I know of no movement, no place for the sense of "I am" to rest which is not a construct, a fabrication being that the self its self is a fabrication. There can be no arrival being that in essence there is no tangible entity to arrive at truth or what ever we want to call it. The paradox is this: There is only the whole, the observed. The observer is a lie, a trick of smoke and mirrors. We are the outcome of a separation between the observer and the observed that is not really true. It has come about through the brain receiving impressions and these impressions giving birth to MR past the self. There is no way for us to escape our heritage that of being the past yet the past ending and our sense of self with it does not seem so attractive so what can we do? I sense we can come to know our larger self the whole, the whole of everything, we are the totality of the world the sum total of all that exist. And we are also the son of the whole being the father of the past/us is the present moment as it receding from the living now into what was, the past. Could we say that we are conceived the moment the present recedes into the past?

Can we really throw out the past and live to talk about it? Maybe we as the past must accept a smaller footprint knowing that without the living present moment fueling our existence there is no past, no sense of "I am". Yet I feel we feel lighter, freer, less toxic when we as the past hold a smaller foot print and the anew is embraced as our childhood and accumulation like our old age :)

Forum: General Discussion Mon, 09 Nov 2015
Topic: The reality of a tree.

Aseem Kumar wrote: George, there is no such watching that is without a watcher. When one is recognizing what is happening inside the head (e.g, whole thing/field unfolding), then it is self only that is the recognizer. Whatever happens next at the experiencing/sensation level is induced by thought stored in memory as some significant religious/spiritual knowledge/experience. Once such special religious/spiritual experience happens, then demand for their repetition is life giving fuel for the me/self. What do you say?

The problem I am seeing and this problem is wide spread throughout the forum and in other enquiring circles is this: The self is looked at as something that must come to an end in order for the mind/brain to be at peace. As your aware thought can't see its own self end and any arrival/conclusion is tied to the dream of self.

As seen here some form of unification must come about where the brain/mind knows that the identity that it is expressing its self through is fictitious and in truth the brain/mind is a mirror of impressions of "What was" that is a "What is" :) The paradox is this: For some reason the brain/mind cannot function without creating the duality responsible from moving it from the formless, its truth, to form, the illusion of a separate self the observed. I do not see why the brain/mind cannot function sanely if it is aware of both sides of the coin, aware of both its unborn nature and its born nature. When aware of its unborn nature it is aware that the observer is the observed, the content of consciousness is consciousness. And when its aware of its born nature it is aware that it has accumulated an artificial body/form forged from the many receding moments gone by.

I do not sense we can throw the baby out with the bath water here being that there was never really a baby or any bath water :) It seems that we can only grasp the problem wholistically so we do not face it divided, divided meaning seeing the generation of the problem separate from the source/we who have projected it.

The self is the cornerstone for the whole structure of what we call human life. It is the (idea) giving motion to the brains thoughts. Pull this (idea) that of self from the human brain and the whole structure is cut under. Not that it would not just reappear :) I sense we must understand this process not in captivity but in the wild. We know we can't end it, but we can see how the whole story is being made up and its reservoir being the collective content of consciousness, so no separate self. All very tough stuff to talk about old friend.

Forum: General Discussion Mon, 09 Nov 2015
Topic: The reality of a tree.

Tom Paine wrote: I'm only pointing out that the desire to reach a goal to end the 'me'/conflict is a movement of the conflict...is further conflict.

Yes, but we can see together that when it comes to thought/self. When one door closes another one opens by invention. It is as if the waking up from one dream is only an illusion, the fact is we only went from one dream to the next dream without a gap. Now we take the new dream for being awakened :) I think awakening is closer to the realization that its all dreams, its always a redecoration of the same prison called thought where within the sphere of thoughts influence the sense of self is generated and the boundaries which hold thought hostage are also forged. Isn't it in this wholeness that we abide in not coming or going. We get a little rest in the truth of wholeness. Yet we must fragment to play the game called life but maybe this time down deep we will remain as the source of both self and world. Be in the world that thought built but not be truly of it.

Forum: General Discussion Mon, 09 Nov 2015
Topic: The reality of a tree.

Sudhir sharma wrote: The listener has come to listen to K and is listening with attention/interest, this points to the fact that there are already present some background accumulations as knowledge/experiences in his memory related to K teachings or similar such teachings. These background accumulations will not keep quiet and distort listening sooner or later.

Is there a listener without the background? If not, then there is no listening with or without background. What do you say?

Forum: A Quiet Space Sat, 20 Feb 2016
Topic: When the mind truly sees itself, it dissolves.

Hello all :)

Long time no see. Could not but help to add a sense on this topic.

The self is nether good or bad, evil or beautiful, the self is just (time) unconsciously most often imposed on you unassociated awareness. Its hard to believe we are timeless and are that which is most pure (awareness). We do have the opportunity don't you find to come upon our essence, our truth. The truth of being the eternal unborn if it was not for the error of accumulation. Pickup just one idea or notion to who and what we are and begin the journey ever further from our truth (the timeless). But remain for a moment (unborn) yet alive and kicking and one will never again take up roots in the world of time. Rather one will remain shedding any accumulation moment to moment to moment.

I love you my friends, embrace your/our unborn/empty nature. Krishnamurti's unhardened heart.

Forum: A Quiet Space Sat, 20 Feb 2016
Topic: When the mind truly sees itself, it dissolves.

Jean Gatti wrote: "A 'good' war would educate those young people"

... meaning by this, a 'good' suffering can teach them the real value of life ...

Suffering has its place too ...

Hi Jean

I understood the intent of your above words. Yes one who has suffered the gaunlet of true deep introspection and found no self which has not been put together (time) has most likely also embraced such suffering understanding it was necessary for most of us. Necessary to keep the dog from chasing its own tail :)