The man that really knows, doesn’t speak. 2. The man that speaks, doesn’t really know.

One word is too much.

My point really is, is that any system that attempts to describe the actual must be flawed. How could it be otherwise?

Living in the unknown means to not know what to do at any mini second of one’s life, is just doing.

Richard do you understand that the words you are saying after they left your mouth are already old?

You can easily and accurately describe how good it was last time you had sex with your partner. But these are only thoughts, they convey something ... but of what use they would be to me if I wouldn’t have any sexperiences? Even Enlightenment can be described, that’s not the issue here. I have pointed out to the distinction between thoughts and experience. The experience gives rise to thoughts, not the other way around, otherwise I will live through quotation-marks. Your thoughts cannot give rise to a similar experience in me (a PCE for instance), they can describe it, yes, but they cannot produce/induce it. Simple as that.

Richard, if a person reads about three or less words K spoke, nothing else is needed for truth stands by it’s self. The problem may well be that a truth spoken instantly becomes a lie. No. 10, speaking a truth. Richard, perhaps we can start here. While a truth is being spoken it is 100% true, the instant the words are complete the truth ‘dies’ (becomes a lie) and needs to be discovered anew. Truth has a birth, a life and then a death, just as we do.

The ‘universe seeing or experiencing itself in perfect purity of being’ seems to be another way of expressing the same realisation. Krishnamurti spoke sometimes in dualistic terms, e.g. – ‘the other’, and sometimes in non-dualistic terms, e.g. – a state of mind that knows no separation. Words are merely pointers.

‘I’ am the thought of being somehow separate in time apart from everything else. If there seems to be someone in time free from anything, that is duality. If ‘I’ am aware that I am aware, or aware that I am ‘free’, that is division.

The description is not the thing. Seeing does not involve the symbolic. To say things like: there is nothing sacred, life is a beneficence, or other such nonsense may in fact be from seeing, but only images are projected.

Knowledge is distorting perception. Instead of observing with two eyes, can there be observation with ‘one eye’, i.e. with consciousness that is undivided? Instead of observing with two eyes, can there be observation with ‘one eye’, i.e. with consciousness that is undivided?

This is so maybe because you cannot live any ‘teaching’. This site is mainly the product of a person life experience translated into thoughts. It’s a huge mistake to think that by practicing ‘it’, you can arrive somewhere. Thoughts/ideas cannot generate experience, they can do all sorts of things: simulate, represent, imitate, emulate but they cannot experience. Anyone who thinks that he experiences something different in terms of consciousness when immersed in a certain thought medium might simply fool himself. It’s at best a lab experience. (...) Once you experience a PCE, all the (repetitive) lingo associated with actualism will simply die out. This ‘lingo’ is at least a warning sign that a person creativity, innate originality, authenticity are seriously affected. The PCE is supposed to be the height of a person’s genuineness and naivety, the infinite source for new and original thoughts; it’s supposed to be as perfect, new and refreshing as each new moment.