Dear all,

Came here to share what suddenly came out of my mouth as a response to someone. Vocal chords uttered: "I am not a word and therefore words cannot harm me."

Without identification with word/thought there is no image of myself and and one therefore remains untouched by anyone's judgement of this image. Only an image of me would care or react. Interesting to live this as an actuality. There is a sense of undisturbed inner peace "ready to face anything at all". This must be because it is already 'looking at itself in the Eye', the separation between the inner/outer not existing in it.

peace to all,

Mina

Dear Minna

You say.. without an identification with words/thoughts there is no reactive image...

the division between the outer and inner does not exist..

word/thought might be there.. but it is seen for what is..

and "IT" leaves the space for the field of freedom to operate without reaction..

Am I getting you right?

I Am Not This!

Manoj SachDeva wrote:

Dear Minna

You say.. without an identification with words/thoughts there is no reactive image...

the division between the outer and inner does not exist..

word/thought might be there.. but it is seen for what is..

and "IT" leaves the space for the field of freedom to operate without reaction..

Am I getting you right?

Manoj SachDeva wrote:

Dear Minna

You say.. without an identification with words/thoughts there is no reactive image...

the division between the outer and inner does not exist..

word/thought might be there.. but it is seen for what is..

and "IT" leaves the space for the field of freedom to operate without reaction..

Am I getting you right?

Dear friend, i just lost my reply to you. i will try again.

After reading your reply the mind remained inactive. There was no one there to know the answer, any answers, no one to confirm any ideas as right or wrong, that for example 'you are getting me right' or 'not quite right' or whatever else. This means there is no past to consult, no judgement, there is only this moment. Can we share this moment, that is question really.

There is the realisation that the only intelligent manner to respond to your question(to anything at all) is to be at no distance from it. (from anything at all) This means there is the cessation of the observer (mina in this case) and the observed (your question) and the distance this division always implies. Your question then becomes the whole of this Being here, and it ceases to be 'your question to me'. 'you' and 'me' end. There is only the question, free from any needless identification. And since all questions, all thought, is limited by nature, there is 'more' to this wholeness that the question itself. There is space,energy, in which it can be replied in a creative manner. This means a question is not answered in a conventional conditioned way, images being added to images, but it is being answered through/in the undoing of it, in the undoing of limitation. Can we share this energy, the question and beyond, the kind of looking that is not partial? That energy is the answer.

Minna Martini wrote:
This means a question is not answered in a conventional conditioned way.

Minna, I would like to call it a response from the Beyond.

Freedom from the known is Attention in the Unknown: Krishnamurti J

Ramesh G wrote:

Minna Martini wrote:
This means a question is not answered in a conventional conditioned way.

Minna, I would like to call it a response from the Beyond.

Fine with me, describes the same 'thing' which is no-thing :-) :-)

Hi Minna

When there is no difference in ''me'' and ''you'' - You Are The World and The World Is You.

"What is" is there without any need of identification and without the need for it to be any different...

Probably K meant this in You Are The World.

I Am Not This!

Minna Martini wrote:
"I am not a word and therefore words cannot harm me."

Minna, are you afraid of getting hurt? This is not a 'K' question; I'm asking you perhaps as a friend. In my case, I easily get hurt. K says innocence means incapable of getting hurt. Can we discuss?

Freedom from the known is Attention in the Unknown: Krishnamurti J

Manoj SachDeva wrote:

Hi Minna

When there is no difference in ''me'' and ''you'' - You Are The World and The World Is You.

"What is" is there without any need of identification and without the need for it to be any different...

Probably K meant this in You Are The World.

Hi Manoj,

Yes, when there is no distance from what i am, then i am the whole of life and the whole of life is me, instead of the usual state of identification in which the image of 'me' relates to the image of 'the world'. The former is actual, the latter fictional.

Ramesh G wrote:

Minna Martini wrote:
"I am not a word and therefore words cannot harm me."

Minna, are you afraid of getting hurt? This is not a 'K' question; I'm asking you perhaps as a friend. In my case, I easily get hurt. K says innocence means incapable of getting hurt. Can we discuss?

Dear friend,

Sure we can discuss. Had already replied to you yesterday, but the post was lost again. (keep losing everything here, both psycholigally and practically! that seems to be my fate in this world):-) Let us see what comes, if anything, to be shared...

It is clear that any fear of future (fear of getting hurt for example) is a projection of the mind, so for that fear to exist this moment, the mind/the observer has to be active. There has to be 'someone to be afraid of this or that' then, right. So, it is clear that in total focus on this moment and only, which is not possible for as long as thought/the past is active, there cannot be any fear in psychological sense, any observer. Without any knowledge of future/past, without the mind consctructing any limited images of 'what might happen', there is no fear of getting hurt, no fear of 'what tomorrow might bring'. Innocence means not knowing. And also, it is clear that without any knowledge of the future, without any conclusions, one could never say "i will never get hurt" , "i am beyond hurt' etc. either. One does not know, which means not creating self-image, and there is only living what comes.

When you say "I easily get hurt", where you hurt at that moment? Feels not. Now, in that case, what is it that says "i easily get hurt"? Is it an image/knowledge/memory of yourself 'as a person who easily gets hurt', based on what has happened in the past? Has a foundation for future hurt already been created? This is very interesting to look into, it just came to mind here, as part of this enquiry.

Seeing that the ego psychologically is made up of hurt, and the very imprerssion that one needs to protect oneself from getting hurt is a movement of hurt, is what creates it really!

When i said in the original post "I am not a word and therefore words cannot harm me", i did not mean one has, in not understanding the whole of hurt, created an image of an "invulnerable me". That sentence described the realisation that what i really am is far beyond the mind/knowledge/self-mage and that only a self image, can get hurt or undergo anything at all as a limited (lived in knowledge only) experience.

Minna Martini wrote:
"i easily get hurt"? Is it an image/knowledge/memory of yourself 'as a person who easily gets hurt', based on what has happened in the past? Has a foundation for future hurt already been created?

Minna,

Thank you so much. Brilliant thinking! I am learning. Thank you again.

Freedom from the known is Attention in the Unknown: Krishnamurti J

Thank YOU. Without your saying what you say there could not be my saying what i say..:-) It is really one undivided relationship, no separation. :-)

Mina Martini wrote:
Thank YOU. Without your saying what you say there could not be my saying what i say..:-) It is really one undivided relationship, no separation. :-)

Minna, what you say is wonderful. Sometimes I get a negative reply to what I say. How is it undivided relationship then?

Freedom from the known is Attention in the Unknown: Krishnamurti J

Ramesh G wrote:

Mina Martini wrote:
Thank YOU. Without your saying what you say there could not be my saying what i say..:-) It is really one undivided relationship, no separation. :-)

Minna, what you say is wonderful. Sometimes I get a negative reply to what I say. How is it undivided relationship then?

Dear Ramesh. You wonder, if my understanding is correct, how you sometimes get a negative reply to what you say and how can it then be an undivided relationship.

It does not matter what kind of reply you get, at all. On the contrary, it seems that the more negative/fragmented/ignorant reply you get, the more provoked your ego is to react in other words, the greater perhaps the challenge for you to really UNDERSTAND what it(thought) is all about beyond any personal involvement (no reaction of the image/thought of yourself to any reply). and it is seen that only a reaction of the image in you creates the division, nothing else.
It still remains undivided relationship for the one who is undivided himself, because no experience of division is able to remain in wholeness. (and of course not meaning any image of oneself here as 'undivided').

Mina,

<pre> It has been seen for sometime that the cause of offence is not within the offender but rather it is within the offended.
If i am offended by the words of a nother then the responcibility for the offence is myself. If there is no self image then it can not be offended,hence there is no need for the endless legislation trying to stop the offenders.
What a liberation to see that to be offended or not to be offended is up to me,or rather it is not a choice to be or not to be but more a case of there not being a thing to be offended, so it is just not there.
Funny that we prefer to remain attached to the process that can bring so much avoidable suffering.
</pre>

Mina Martini wrote:
(no reaction of the image/thought of yourself to any reply). and it is seen that only a reaction of the image in you creates the division, nothing else.

Thanks Mina,

Then I won't be limited by the known.

Freedom from the known is Attention in the Unknown: Krishnamurti J

John T wrote:

Mina,

<pre> It has been seen for sometime that the cause of offence is not within the offender but rather it is within the offended.
If i am offended by the words of a nother then the responcibility for the offence is myself. If there is no self image then it can not be offended,hence there is no need for the endless legislation trying to stop the offenders.
What a liberation to see that to be offended or not to be offended is up to me,or rather it is not a choice to be or not to be but more a case of there not being a thing to be offended, so it is just not there.
Funny that we prefer to remain attached to the process that can bring so much avoidable suffering.
</pre>

Dearest John,

So it is indeed.

Love

Ramesh G wrote:

Mina Martini wrote:
(no reaction of the image/thought of yourself to any reply). and it is seen that only a reaction of the image in you creates the division, nothing else.

Thanks Mina,

Then I won't be limited by the known.

Yes, thought/reaction/psychological knowledge remains quiet=does not exist. The image of you does not exist. Yes, that is liberation.