Jiddu Krishnamurti

[Mellowmarsh]

What is the image of the personal?

 

Nothing personal. ⬇️

[Ajay0]

On 6/14/2026 at 3:19 PM, Breakingthewall said:

I think the same. "Self" means experience. 

Dude, the 'Self' in nondual perspective means Awareness. The higher Self is often contrasted with the lower self.

The Self here is  in upper case capital letters, so as to make it distinct from the lower case  self which is associated with the ego or untrained, chaotic mind.

Self is distinct from experience, as the perception of experience differs from the vantage point of the uncontaminated Self in contrast to the distorted perception of the conditioned mind. 

[Joseph Maynor]

This is an interesting quote:

"Understanding of the self only arises in relationship, in watching yourself in relationship to people, ideas, and things; to trees, the earth, and the world around you and within you. Relationship is the mirror in which the self is revealed. Without self-knowledge there is no basis for right thought and action."

[Mellowmarsh]

2 hours ago, Joseph Maynor said:

How do you feel about Jiddu Krishnamurti?

Jiddu Krishnamurti often noted that naming an experience—like teaching a child the name of a bird—replaces the pure, immediate sensation with a mental concept. 
 

I agree with him.

[Sugarcoat]

On 2026-06-14 at 0:04 PM, Breakingthewall said:

@Sugarcoat

I would say that Lisa Cairns experiences what many mystics do. They reach a state of limitlessness, then create a logical framework that is a mess.

For example, in one video she says that awakening happens when you realize that everything is you, and in another that there is no you. Both statements are logical constructs. Awakening is not a logical construct but the opening to your limitless nature.

Then, saying that you have realized that the moon doesn't exist and that baby Jesus cries if you touch yourself, or that you must fight in jihad, depends on your mental framework. These teachers confuse unstructured states with structures that they "become aware" of. 

Logic is structure, openess is without structure. Then they merge both because they are totally focused in absence of structure and they say things like: reality is pure consciousness. Everything is imaginary. Nothing exist. Reality is nothing. Then the people read it and change their structural frame for that mess and come to forums to say that are enlightened repeating that nothing is real or anything 

Yea I feel sometimes it's the sloppy language use that can make it tad bit harder to discern who's the genuine one or not. You really gotta be sensitive for that. 

[Sugarcoat]

On 2026-06-14 at 11:49 AM, Breakingthewall said:

I think the same. "Self" means experience. 

 

There are 3 levels imo. First the self full of identification due the human need of belonging. This need is genetically uncoded and very strong. Not always same strength, some individuals are more free of that. I'm not one of them, but maybe you are, some are more inclined to spirituality because their structure, let's say less dense. 

Second is the pure I am in meditation. Absolutely empty of anything, just the I am, the feeling of being, of existing. Not a thought that says "I am" but the very fact of being conscious is the I am. 

3, when the I and the am lose their limits and the structure collapse. There is no more "consciousness ", because it implies being aware of. There is the reality, period. Zero structure, then it's like a ocean of life without any distinction. This is the no self that they talk about 

But look, that no self really is the self without limits, because there is still experience, register, knowledge. What happens is that you made a movement to dissolve the natural structure in order to break the barrier that prevents you to realize the nature of yourself. It doesn't mean that there is no self but that the self become the whole and the whole become the self. Now I remember perfectly that yesterday I did that movement for 10 minutes, then saying that of no self is just a mess without sense imo

I think I can kinda follow what youre saying, I see it as degrees, all the way from the thickest most dense ego (maybe adolf hitler or something) to the most subtle (hmmm who could that be) , to zero self which makes me think of , nvm I can't think of them because theres just "nothing" to them if you get what im saying. But basically theres almost like endless amount of states the ego could be in, ranging this entire spectrum, and even if you start towards the adolf hitler range of the scale, if something is powerful enough it could still break it down, be it laser attention or whatever 😶

Edited 11 hours ago by Sugarcoat

[Sugarcoat]

On 2026-06-14 at 9:03 AM, Jirh said:

@Sugarcoat

No self is a state of ego dissolution. You're there, more present and aware than ever, but without the ego self. It's the state where anything goes and there are no boundaries between self and other. You become a vessel of acceptance and allowance. Zero resistance. Total surrender.

I prefer to call it ego death, rather than no self.

What do you consider difference between ego and self? You mean self can be but without boundaries but ego is when theres sense of boundaries between the two? Personally I sometimes hesitate to use the word ego because its so strongly associated with negative qualities that it can feel like the term doesn't truly capture "self" but rather certain qualities of self 

[Osaid]

9 hours ago, Mellowmarsh said:

Jiddu Krishnamurti often noted that naming an experience—like teaching a child the name of a bird—replaces the pure, immediate sensation with a mental concept. 
 

I agree with him.

The actual quote is quite poignant.

"The day you teach the child the name of the bird, the child will never see that bird again" - JK

[Mellowmarsh]

7 hours ago, Osaid said:

The actual quote is quite poignant.

"The day you teach the child the name of the bird, the child will never see that bird again" - JK

Gotta love that one, what a pure golden nugget. 🤩

[Mellowmarsh]

2 minutes ago, Joseph Maynor said:

Um Hm.  

Things that make you go hmm. 🤔 

[Joseph Maynor]

1 minute ago, Mellowmarsh said:

Things that make you go hmm. 🤔 

Good point.

[Mellowmarsh]

2 minutes ago, Joseph Maynor said:

Good point.

Preferably. 🤔

[Jirh]

10 hours ago, Sugarcoat said:

What do you consider difference between ego and self? You mean self can be but without boundaries but ego is when theres sense of boundaries between the two? Personally I sometimes hesitate to use the word ego because its so strongly associated with negative qualities that it can feel like the term doesn't truly capture "self" but rather certain qualities of self 

Self is the sense of existence. Like "I'm here, I exist, somehow, somewhere, someway". It's vague and not specific. But it is certain and ever-present with you.

Ego is more like the narrative or identity structure that arises when awareness (or sense of self) contracts around a story: "I am this person, with this history, these preferences, these fears." It's the boundary-maker. It utilizes conscious cognition and memory to unconsciously draw lines between "me" and "you", "inside" and "outside", "mine" and "not mine". And it changes depending on context.

Generally, when Buddhists talk about no-self, they aren't describing a state or an experience. They are usually talking about the natural state of reality being a selfless emptiness that changes in appearance or content but never in essence. It's more theoretical, like they are stating a truth about existence, not an experience that can be had or an achievement to be attained.

Edited 52 minutes ago by Jirh

[Breakingthewall]

10 hours ago, Sugarcoat said:

Yea I feel sometimes it's the sloppy language use that can make it tad bit harder to discern who's the genuine one or not. You really gotta be sensitive for that. 

I think that all of them need to transmit anything ineffable, special, because otherwise nobody would pay attention, then they say things like "there is nobody here" to create in the audience an image of mystery and freedom.  And maybe they didn't develop a clean conceptual frame, they have read Buddhism, neo advaita, etc. 

Thats doesn't mean that the are a fraud, but I wouldn't pay attention to those expressions, are a mess

[Breakingthewall]

10 hours ago, Sugarcoat said:

to the most subtle (hmmm who could that be) , to zero self which makes me think of , nvm I can't think of them because theres just "nothing" to them if you get

Zero self is just when the self and the reality are exactly the same, I would say open self better. Means that there is not "consciousness" in the sense that there is not sense of observer, but still reality is aware of itself, then saying zero self and those expressions is like feeling interesting or anything. It's just a psychological state, nothing else, nothing magic . But in that state it's obvious that the reality and you are one, nothing else. Nothing about "infinite consciousness" or anything special 

[Breakingthewall]

37 minutes ago, Jirh said:

Self is the sense of existence. Like "I'm here, I exist, somehow, somewhere, someway". It's vague and not specific. But it is certain and ever-present with you.

Exactly, self is the fact of being conscious. Don't need to be formulated as "I", but it is.  A cat has it, or a new born baby. In totally open meditation where there is no sense of I, observer, center, only an ocean of life or being, there is still recognition of existing