Quote:"The mind that has put its house in order is silent."
   BY: To quote it like this out of its context gives space to many misinterpretations: 'mind' can't put its house in order. Mind does not exist without 'thinker', so he/she is the one who can put something in order and make decisions. If there is order then the mind might be silent, that could mean with less movement or without movement but this doesn't necessarily mean that there is 'silence'. Not the silence K is talking about: 
   Jer*: Yes, this does leave the door open to misinterpretation...
   BY*: I would say: This invites to misinterpretation. What might not that different or the difference doesn't matter when we see that the personality interprets everything, even the most clear formulated statements, so that it will fit into the own individual concept. Apart of this any interpretation of 'silence', any, is a misinterpretation.(There might be the exception of the one who is 'living' silence and is expressing oneself out of it. Though this 'expressions of silence' will be interpreted by all the other individuals and it is a bloody reality: How highly intelligent those interpretations what ever might be, they are all misinterpretations.)
   Jer*: ...But I question your statement that "mind does not exist without the 'thinker'." This is evident when one speaks about mind as it applies to the "self" which sees itself separated from all else... 
   BY*: Yes, this person's mind is normally not separated from his/her personality because there is identification with the mind, what means the person IS the mind and gets his/her selfconfirmation out of it. So this is one reason why people like to be that busy with their mind and have developed their mind trip in such a highly sophisticated way.
   Jer*: ...But does that preclude a "universal" or "undivided" Mind? 
   BY*: 'Universal' or 'undivided Mind' does not 'exist' if it is not lived: individually realized. Part of thesophisticated intellect is the developments of high ideals, ideas, concepts,etc. but this does not mean that all this exist. Yes, it exist in the heads of their creators and in all those who have adapted the same idea, but not necessary in life. People are fighting all life long to bring their concepts into realization, how much suffering is caused by that! 'Universal mind' is a theory and can only be proofed individually in one's life...(But this seems to be like the promise to win the first price if you play the lotterie. It creates a false hope which distracts from reality, so better forget about it.) Talking about it serves only to confirm theoriesand concepts, which in a certain way creates obstacles and hinder the realizationof it. Anyway people are satisfied by their concepts and their fights,their suffering and so on, so realization is not even wanted...
   Krishnamurti: "That silence has no cause and, therefore, has no end. That silence ... which has no ending... is absolutely necessary, because it is only in that silence that there is no movement of thought. It is only in that silence that that which is sacred, that which is nameless, and that which is not measurable by thought, is. And that which is, is the most sacred. That is meditation." publictalk, Madras, Nov. 29, 1981 
   BY: Indeed, - but who can 'understand' this?
   Jer*: If by "understand" you are referring to recognition by the intellect then I would say no one. But, is there perhaps an "understanding" that does not spring from the intellect? But, rather comes from the "silence" itself?
   BY**: An interesting theory! - Which can be grasp by an developed intellect. And also every thing else can be understood by the same intellect, but who can't 'understand' what means to live it, because it's understanding is just theory. 
   Jer**: The theory does not preclude the possibility. But, (and this may be what you were getting at) being content with the theory as an answer will prevent its realization in life. One will be satisfied with the conclusion of the theory.
I would also point out that all communications are conceptual. That is the nature of the spoken word. 
   BY***: I do not agree: Not all communications are conceptual. I prefer to make a difference between 'communication' and communication or real communication and that what people normally call communication. So we know that there is no real communication, but not because it is all conceptual. It is, because people are conceptual, they are not open, they are conditioned by their adapted concepts, so they are only open for that what confirms their own concept. If someone meets another person with the same background, concept, believe or whatever, then there seems to be communication, but this is not real communication, it is confirmation of one's own concept, so it is satisfying and gives a good feeling and people are looking for it and form groups, lists, parties, clubs etc. to get it. Do I talk to people which are turning around themselves? Or did K's sixty years long teaching have an effect and are people in this list and somewhere else who are at least able to look over their own shadow, if they are not able yet to jump it... 
   The limitation of being 'conceptual' is NOT the nature of spoken word. Words are the vehicle of energy, they transmit something beyond the meaning. We only can start to communicate, when we learn to listen. NOT just to the sense of the words but to the meaning behind. What means: to the expression of this person. What is it really this person wants to transmit? People are not able to express themselves, they rarely have learned it, because society doesn't allow it. It is allowed to use empty phrases, this is socially excepted. But if somebody is trying to express him or herself then very often is rejected. When we learn to listen, for this it would be necessary to leave one's own important personality a bit aside, then we will not get lost in endless discussions and leave the other and ourself with a hollow feeling. We will see that the other person don't dare to express his/her need and is talking instead of something totally different. People want to be reached but at the same time they build walls around them. Why? Because they are all vulnerable. That's the nature of 'personality'. I would even go one step further and say: All this adapted concepts, believes, etc. are a substitute for 'love'. Human beings want to be loved, that's the most important to feel good, excepted, secure. Reality is, that there is no love, there is no communication. People are fighting to get something to feel good and as there is no love, at least they are searching in the wrong direction, so they grasp what is offered: Money, food, property, concepts, ideologies, etc. and if nothing gives satisfaction because it is unreachable then there are the many ways to make oneself dull and dumb...
   Jer**: Everything that you say is also stated as a concept. This does not mean that you "live it" as a concept. Just that you can only relate the possibilities to others through "concepts".
   BY***: I do NOT agree. Even the facts seem to give you right I do not agree. If it would be really like this, that no one can receive anything what I am trying to transmit, that all is filtered through one's concepts, then I will indeed shut up and withdraw myself into silence. So I ask all readers of this writings to respond and to tell me if it is or not like this. This is urgent and this writing will surely be my last post to this list if it really turns out that there is no way to communicate on a personal/impersonal level. 
   Jer**: So, to reject someone's written or spoken words on the basis that it is a concept is not the same as a rejection of the validity or integrity of the speaker.
   BY***: I am not rejecting anything, not written or spoken words and not the speaker. As I mentioned before: I am trying to look behind and trying to relate and respond to whatever I might see.
   Jer**: It is the rejection of being "satisfied" with the concept as an answer and instead checking out its validity in the arena of Life and relationship.
   BY***: If the 'validity' is searched for reaching out to go beyond one's personality, then I agree. If the validity is only used to feed one's structure and to survive in 'life and relationship' then I will not participate any longer. 
   Jer: While all of this speaks very much to the point about silence, it also points up the fact that silence cannot be defined by words. 
   BY: Right. So why is there so much talking about it? 90% of the talking going on in this list seems to be about subjects which can't be talked about.
   Jer*: A good question. But then, why did K speak for more than 60 years on these topics and encourage "dialogue"about them? 
   BY**: Would be good to know, but we can't ask him. As this question is directed to me, I can try only from my own life's experience to answer it: (What might have nothing or little to do with Krishnamurtis reason for his life long talking)
When first I got in contact with Krishnamurtis books, this is about 40 years ago, I was fascinated. I didn't really understand what he was talking about, but I felt, that there was 'something' and this animated me to go on reading. Other people to whom I had given the books were only confused...I must add that I had meditated already since about fife years. And I had started to meditate because of other reasons which had happened before. (Maybe in another occasion I can talk about it). When I started to study, I had a clear vision what I was going to do in my life, so I went on. To make it short: I went from one failure to the next, years went on, decades passed by, I still had my vision. I was fighting for realization and finely after about 25 years it was there,... to see - after another 15 years - that it was a failure as well. So 40 years I was busy trying to realize an illusion! I don't want to say that my vision was an illusion. No, I was living in an illusion because I was living in another world, in the world of my vision. So I had to come down, step by step, what means: dropping one illusion after the other and so getting in contact with reality: 'that what is'. And I can ensure you that in this (my reality) there are no concepts, theories and believes included. There are still rests of it and so I am going on with clearing and cleaning up and also still going on with my vision, so I might be busy for the next 20 years. So ask me again in 20 years why I was going on with my vision for 60 years...

   BY: ... sophisticated words on a pretty high level shows that people are well trained after a lot of talking. Probably they feel satisfied about it and being like 'miniature Krishnamurtis', growing with more training bigger and bigger... 
   Jer*: It is possible that this motivates some on this list. But does the mere fact of participation indicate this is so? If so, and you are so much against this, why would you bother to write? 
   BY**: I am not 'against' it, I am just 'pointing out' as well as you are pointing it out. 
   Jer: Like all else of this nature to discover "it" one must start where one is by finding out what" is not" silence.
   BY*: Obviously all the talking within this list and of course also outside this list "is not" silence. But just to shut up would not be an alternative that's pretty clear. So what?
   Jer*: What is "obvious" about all of the talking on this list not being a part of silence? Is this just a conclusion on your part? Based on your "idea" about silence? And how do you "know" that "to shut up" is not an alternative for any of us when we are not participating here? 
   BY**: It is obvious for me, even I read only about 10% of the 1.000 messages accumulated from the last two weeks. I have no 'idea' about silence (what doesn't say that an experience is precluded) and it should be clear meanwhile what I am trying to point out. For me it is not an alternative solution to shut up. I think the one who is doing nothing (not relating) in front of a happening, is as 'guilty'as the one how is responding and doing something wrong. But this is my private opinion and I don't expect that somebody is sharing it with me. I told my friends that they can write on my grave stone: "He failed, but at least he tried". 

   Jer:If you equate silence with the "absence" of thought or external sounds then what is pointed to above cannot exist and did not exist for K. - So, what is this "noise" of which K speaks? What is "movement of  thought"?
   BY*: If I understand it right I would say: Noise, thoughts and whatever comes out of an individual, are reactions of the system, in this case of human beings, what means 'personality'.
   Jer*: Yes, I would say this is exactly it, "whatever comes out of an "individual" and "personality". The key words being "individual" and "personality".
   BY**: 'Keywords for what? 

   BY: This has like all systems, the in build tendency for survival, what includes all those different ways to react: withdraw, escape, hold on, defend, attack, collect property, grow bigger, accumulate fat in the bottom or money in the bank, etc. All systems do it, all alive systems: from the crystal structure of a stone to the one cellular amoeba, animals, plants, just the only difference is that they don't have a bank account... and another difference is that humans have the possibility to grow beyond their 'personality'. (I agree, this is a theory in general, but it is also my personal (?) experience). Well, very few do so and are capable to jump over their own shadow, but there are indeed a very few so they are the proof that there is 'something' which goes beyond 'lousy personality'. To start to understand what is 'not' silence would mean to understand that whatever someone is doing or not doing, talking or not talking, or whatever comes out of an individual, is a reaction with the purpose to survive. 
   Jer*: Yes, and not only on the physical level but psychologically as well. Keeping the "self" intact. Keeping that which "defines" oneself. Holding to attachments and rejections at all cost.
   BY: So adapting the ideas of Krishnamurti and talking about it again and again is nothing else. Or not? 
   Jer*: Yes, the "adaptation"of what K had to say as "concepts" or "ideas" wouldbe more of the same. But, the discovery for oneself of the factual andreal nature of what K had to say would not be the "same ol' same ol'."And discussing it with others is not an automatic indication that one has not seen for oneself "the factual and real nature of what K had to say". Or is it? 
   BY**: It would be great and I would be glad. That would mean that K. didn't fail in his life long attempt. I am too new in this list and anyway who am I to judge if somebody has seen "the factual and real nature of what K had to say"? 

   Jer: Elsewhere K speaks of thought that is not a movement. Probably likewise undefinable and only discovered by the negation of that which is not "it".
   BY*: If someone doesn't know what 'it' is, how can this one negate something which is 'not it'? Talking aboutit what 'it' is or 'not is', is the helpless intent to come 'near' to it, which in any case must fail because it is a turning around oneself, trapped in the game of self confirmation with concepts, images, believes, etc.
   Jer*: Negation seems valid for "uncovering"that which "already is". There is no need to "come near"that which is the very essence of Life and is not separate at all.
   BY: 'Essence of Life' is a concept. By my saying 'coming near to it' is meant to come near to the realization of one's concept.(Which is an illusion.)

   QK: Meditation is the action of silence. J. Krishnamurti, "Meditations"
   BY: Meditation is one of the few 'activities'(I believe it is the most effective) which can influence the meditator to grow beyond his/her personality, so with that going beyond conflict:
   QK: "Silence of the mind is not achieved by action, it is not a thing to be gone after: it comes only when conflict ceases." K's Talks 1949-1950
   BY: So I am just wondering how many people of this list are meditating on a regular base, what would mean 'twice a day for 20 minutes'?
   Jer*: And who sets this "standard"as some sort of definition of what "meditation" is?
   BY*: You are right. Yet practice has shown that people when they start, need some given discipline because they are not able to take enough responsibility by themselves, specially because they are entering into an unknown (frightening) field. So to tell them that they should meditate in a certain form that means certain time and so on, helps them and so they can receive the benefit from meditation and then go on in their own way. (I am not meditating every day at a certain hour, but I do it, sometimes only this one minute on the crossroad during the traffic light is staying on red...)
   BY: And how many of those who meditate are not trapped in a kind of 'meditation game' which just is another way to protect their personality.
   Jer*: I would suggest that if they are trapped by someone else's "requirements" or prescribed "plan"(eg: how, when and how long) then they are indeed caught in a game. 
   BY*: Mostly games are not on such a superficial level. I didn't mean the game of others. It's people's own games which is (natural) part of their personality... 
   BY: So meditation is not the same as meditation.
   Jer*: Exactly! So why ask or even wonder about how "frequently" or "long" the people on this list "meditate". In your web site you, as I do in mine, indicate that meditation is "life" and therefore not a "practice. "Now, I too see that allowing the time for silent "sitting" can possibly "reveal" what meditation is but to impose such sitting is nonsensical. This will only add to the conflict. And meditation only comes "when conflict ceases."
   BY**: 'Meditation is life and there fore not a practice', this might be said after twenty or fourty years of meditation, (but not necessarily) To aplicate this on every body means to create a concept which might be interpreted like: 'I don't need to sit down to meditate - for me life is meditation...' So those people will not come to the benefit of meditation which comes out of 'sitting down twice a day for twenty minutes'. So better not to wait that 'conflict ceases' to start to meditate. I believe it is even fair to put some cheese into the 'meditation trap' to motivate people. For example: I can tell a succesful businessman that he will be even more succesful when he meditates and I have a lot of convincing arguments for this. But of course I will not tell him, that also his measurement of values will change and so that he might chift his interests... With the same reason I will not tell people what will happen to their 'personality' and that they are in danger to loose it...
   BY*: Who wants something which goes against one's existence? Or more exact: one's 'lousy personality', because 'existence' would mean to go beyond and being capable to open oneself to new horizons.
   Jer*: [...] But I do have to ask, why would your "talking" there be any different from our "talking" here? Is it not possible that there are those on this list that, like you, only wish to "point"? Or is it that you disagree with the way that we "point"? 
   BY**: Did I claim that my talking is different? I don't think that I have said that I disagree with the way someone points.