Jiddu Krishnamurti

[Breakingthewall]

6 hours ago, Jirh said:

There it is; no-self, or emptiness.

Though, what is awareness aware of?

For consciousness to exist, there must be structure. Without a record of experience that differentiates past and present, there is no consciousness. If your memory were absolute zero, there would be no consciousness; you wouldn't perceive change because to perceive it, you have to register the previous state.

Furthermore, there must be perception of inside out, object and subject, which can dissolve, and this is what we call a meditative state. But first, it must exist.

Consciousness is not something; rather, it is the result of a structure.

[VeganAwake]

8 hours ago, Sugarcoat said:

Ahahahah, i just saw your post and immediately as I read “MMA” the song popped up in memory and I took the opportunity😁

Imo it’s actually a catchy song I’ve listened to it quite a few times. 

😅 maybe I should have just listened and not watched.

I will take your word for it though!

[Ajay0]

Dada Gavand is an enlightened sage of modern times who was influenced by the writings of Jiddu Krishnamurti and had spent time with him as a spiritual seeker in his youth.

Dada's core teachings after his own enlightenment  reflected Krishnamurti's philosophy, emphasizing silent watchfulness, choiceless awareness, and freedom from mechanical thought.

I had created a thread on Dada Gavand's account of enlightenment ....

 

[Jirh]

7 hours ago, Sugarcoat said:

Definitions this and that, recognize if you have a sense of self or not, people be deluded talking about awakenings when they’re struggling with basic ego problems 

So, it's aware of thoughts. I would say that it's not limited to just thoughts, but it's a good place to start.

What are thoughts?

[Jirh]

6 hours ago, Breakingthewall said:

For consciousness to exist, there must be structure. Without a record of experience that differentiates past and present, there is no consciousness. If your memory were absolute zero, there would be no consciousness; you wouldn't perceive change because to perceive it, you have to register the previous state.

Furthermore, there must be perception of inside out, object and subject, which can dissolve, and this is what we call a meditative state. But first, it must exist.

Consciousness is not something; rather, it is the result of a structure.

Why would consciousness/awareness require time?

I think that it's self-sufficient on its own. And that it is actually what creates the sense of time or the structure that you mentioned.

There is awareness of something, simple as that. No need for time or anything else.

There's also an awareness of time.

[Sugarcoat]

2 hours ago, VeganAwake said:

😅 maybe I should have just listened and not watched.

I will take your word for it though!

ahahah ☺️

[Mellowmarsh]

13 hours ago, Jirh said:

There it is; no-self, or emptiness.

Though, what is awareness aware of?

Awareness is not aware to be aware of something. 

 

 

[Jirh]

Just now, Mellowmarsh said:

Awareness is not aware to be aware of something.

Are you saying awareness is not aware?

If it's not aware, then it's unaware. And awareness cannot be unaware. That would be a contradiction.

[Mellowmarsh]

Just now, Jirh said:

Are you saying awareness is not aware?

If it's not aware, then it's unaware. And awareness cannot be unaware. That would be a contradiction.

Yes, it’s a paradox, a synthetic phenomenon empty to the core.

Awareness is not aware or unaware because there’s no awareness of being unaware, or aware.

[Jirh]

Just now, Mellowmarsh said:

Yes, it’s a paradox, a synthetic phenomenon empty to the core.

Awareness is not aware or unaware because there’s no awareness of being unaware, or aware.

Sounds like a word salad that doesn't make any sense.

And actually my experience suggests the opposite.

But thanks for sharing your thoughts.

[Mellowmarsh]

Just now, Jirh said:

Sounds like a word salad that doesn't make any sense.

And actually my experience suggests the opposite.

But thanks for sharing your thoughts.

You’re welcome.

 

 

[Breakingthewall]

4 hours ago, Jirh said:

Why would consciousness/awareness require time?

I think that it's self-sufficient on its own. And that it is actually what creates the sense of time or the structure that you mentioned.

There is awareness of something, simple as that. No need for time or anything else.

There's also an awareness of time.

Consciousness doesn't create nothing , it's an structure that happens that appears as perception of reality. If the object of consciousness where still, no change, then it would be like anesthesia, unconsciousness, because that object would be nothing. "Something" is relative change of state, and consciousness is the perception of change. Existence is relative change. 

[Mellowmarsh]

Awareness is not aware to be aware of something.

There’s nothing here being aware of something there…and there’s nothing there being aware of something here…because a nothing here is only ever an exact mirror reflection ( image of the imageless) of something there.
 

This is who you are. 😲

Don’t faint.

 

 

[Jirh]

9 hours ago, Breakingthewall said:

Consciousness doesn't create nothing , it's an structure that happens that appears as perception of reality. If the object of consciousness where still, no change, then it would be like anesthesia, unconsciousness, because that object would be nothing. "Something" is relative change of state, and consciousness is the perception of change. Existence is relative change. 

Why assume that consciousness requires change/time to amount to an experience?

You can have consciousness of a static object that's not changing over time. It's not rocket science.

[Sugarcoat]

21 hours ago, Jirh said:

So, it's aware of thoughts. I would say that it's not limited to just thoughts, but it's a good place to start.

What are thoughts?

The thought is the thing explaining what it is…a mystery for now 

[Sugarcoat]

On 2026-06-17 at 2:47 PM, Breakingthewall said:

If there's a kind of transmission, it's like you understand their feeling in the moment, because they speak during moments of genuine meditation. So, more than the logical content of their message, they transmit the idea, the feeling, with words that come to them at that moment. Therefore, you're not going to analyze exactly what they say to find errors because it's spontaneous discourse. It's different when someone writes or defends points very clearly, like saying that the self is a mental concept, etc.

When I first became interested in spirituality, I did a lot of research, and everything seemed distorted to me, with a fundamental error. I didn't know exactly what it was, but something was amiss. In Krishnamurti, Adyashanti, Ralston, Spira, Mooji, etc it was a feeling, as if they were starting from the wrong premise. 

Transmission is a good word for it, never really thought of it before. 
 

I can kinda relate to that last part, simply feeling there’s something off, then it could be different things what you mean vs what I mean but just that general sense. Still pondering that sometimes, what it is. One aspect: I suspect a lot of the audience don’t actually want enlightment in the way they think, they actually want some kind of self that they can enjoy, but they’re misinterpreting themselves, and the teachers are speaking in support of that “desire” instead of pointing out this misinterpretation . And also sometimes someone is speaking of no self and nothing but from my pov it’s like “that’s a person right there I can feel it”, how can you emit “personhood” in that way if there’s “nothing” from your pov lol. Also if a spiritual teacher is always like “calm” in their expression, no, a developed personality should have different sides to it, always seeming “calm” feels like one sided, something missing. Just some thoughts. 
 

 

Edited yesterday at 02:39 AM by Sugarcoat

[Sugarcoat]

On 2026-06-16 at 10:46 AM, Breakingthewall said:

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 

Sounds to me like the “self” would be all that is contained in that particular “pov” , or something …

[VeganAwake]

He's hyper focused on the word "self" ......I think it was more than a wall that broke! 🤷‍♂️

[Sugarcoat]

6 minutes ago, VeganAwake said:

He's hyper focused on the word "self" ......I think it was more than a wall that broke! 🤷‍♂️

I don’t get the joke 

Actually I love these jokes. If I said every joke on my mind about this place I’d be banned . Or maybe told “get a life” or something 

Edited yesterday at 04:16 AM by Sugarcoat

[VeganAwake]

21 minutes ago, Sugarcoat said:

I don’t get the joke 

Actually I love these jokes. If I said every joke on my mind about this place I’d be banned . Or maybe told “get a life” or something 

😁 yup,

beyond ridiculous

I guess I shouldn't shit on my stomping ground though