Separating Issues from Personality

If I were to project myself like a film in a cinema, what could people possibly see on the screen about me? Definitely many images. Perhaps images of me as a goal-getter, a devote, an engineer, an adventurer, a youthful person, a father/husband, a gardener, an orator, an academician, a traveller, an artist, a mechanic, a lover of sport, lover of science & astronomy, a social drinker, artistic, loves women, fashionista, a perfectionist, a biker, a writer and many other images could emerge. If I were to give people the chance for a feedback as to how they find me in each of these projected frames, what could they likely come up with? Maybe something like, “he is wonderful guy”, “he is a good solution architect”, “I guess he is a good father”, “what nasty & proud fellow”, “he certainly must be good at some sport”, “he is down to earth”, “come on, he is an atheist”, “he is just way too boring”, “he must be a womanizer”, “I cannot relate his love for motorcycles to astronomy”, “he loves to interact that's why he must love women”, “he is a freak”, “he is just a crazy guy”, “he is just ambidextrous”, “he is just bizarre”….and many more could be said. But are these the true reflection of who I truly am?


People interact with one’s projected images in many different ways; while you are something to someone, it is possible that at the same instant be something completely different to another. In all, people need something tangible about you to form their opinion. It is cheap, but that's how it is easy for humans to “know” one another, by relating someone to an attribute, behavior or an habit. It is a never ending process, and humans will do anything to form their own opinion regardless of who or what you claim to be. Why? Because the human mind can't keep exploring and changing images of you on each and every occasion - they need something relatively fix and “soothing” to dwell upon. And would maintain one image (or perhaps two), from which every of your actions and in-actions towards them can be well placed. It is from these the difficulties of us dealing with people's perception of us and at the same time dealing with the problem we face with them and how they deal separate issues in relation to our personalities emanates from.


It is a daunting task and requires a special skill for someone to know you for  something perceived negative and choose to relate with you as something else in a positive manner. In an extreme case for instance, how could you relate with someone you know as a frequent visitor to a brothel and at the same time relate to them as a good man? Or, how can you substantiate that a sex worker cannot also be a good priest, and still be willing to receive the holy communion from them? The fact remains it is near impossible to accept such a person without any form of prejudice. The image you have of them would definitely interfere with how you relate with them on other levels. The dilemma is in the fact that you are aware, you have an information stored up about who they are. There's a specific image you are relating with (while oblivious of so many others). If you were not aware, certainly you will relate with them much more differently. While this may sound abstruse, this is the reality. 


Society has a set pattern in dealing with issues, society is a reflection of who we are. So our mannerism is society. The moral clause held by society does not tolerate that someone who is profane can as well be infallible. Therefore, it lies on oneself to keep all manner of one's so called “profanity” hidden and secretive from the prying eyes of society, because you don't want to be adjudged a treatment that cast aspersions to your true personality - the real you; or in other words, you don't want people to assume something different from their fixated image of you. What then is the someone’s true personality? Given that we want to know how to separate issues from personalities. Using the sex worker example as a narrative, let's explore some possibilities: Can a sex worker be a good friend? A good mother? An author? An affectionate fellow? A caregiver? A wonderful musician? A good dancer? A computer specialist? An inventor? A fashion designer? If your answer to these, is Yes; then the possibilities of knowing and dealing with people on different levels (by separating the issues in the lives from their innate personality) is equally endless. Issues are issues. Behaviors are not issues. Issues are static, and individual differences are dynamic. Let's assume the sex worker is known only to you as a trusted ally, or more homely, your most esteemed fashion designer would you be swayed by any contrary information as to the person's image or personality? Absolutely not! Thus it suffices to say fixation on one particular frame or on one particular personality trait without being aware of others and the expression of others have in relation to that person would only keep one in the dark. The truth is people show you the areas of their lives they want you to see. To break out of the cycle, is to get to know (by interaction) who the person is, what else does the person do, what do they have a passion for, what are other people's views about them. When you do this, you delve deeper to see them ‘fully’ through others eyes. And at the same time exploring how to balance dealing with their true personality when you have got some personal problems with them.


You will remember that major conglomerates spend billions of dollars annually to keep their public image intact. If they are publicly known for "quality and excellence", they want to remain as such even though we know some of their products are detrimental to health and to the environment. Not all people have the largess of controlling people's perception of them by doling out money to cooperate brand/image managers. Most people live on the goodwill they strive for. We want to maintain a good image, but then we don't want to lose out on other things we love doing even though it doesn't go down well with a large section of people. Could I be having a drink with my friends in a bar or in a club, and someone who knows me as clergyman still advocate for me as a saint? Or a woman who models for Victoria Secret and someone who knows her as a civil servant still advocate for are as a diligent mother and a good manager? Really, it all boils down on how much room we can make in our minds to accommodate the odds to fit into our preconceived knowledge and yet not become schizophrenic.

Cultural Dilemma

Most of the built-in dilemmas that face human beings in our fast-changing world pose problems for which the wisdom of the past offers no effective solutions. In so many ways we're like a man chased to the edge of a cliff by a roaring lion. If he jumps, he'll be hurt. And if he stays there, the lion's going to get him. For example, we have built-in sexual drives that become strong in the teen years. Marriage may seem to offer a solution. Yet, the marriage counselors advise us that early marriages have a greater rate of divorce— that a person needs to experience life and achieve a degree of maturity before choosing a life partner.The individual suffers no matter how he tries to solve the problem. If a person has an active sex life before marriage, the mores of our tribe may load him with feelings of guilt. If an unmarried person denies his need for sexual expression, he may enjoy a culturally-clean conscience, but he will be fighting a constantly stimulated, deep need that has been structured into his body. Guilt feelings may still arise from vivid sexual fantasies, erotic dreams, or masturbation.

No matter what choice a person makes in this situation, it is usually accompanied by conflict and doubt. Not only in matters of sex, but in most business, personal, and social matters we are confronted with countless dilemmas. Our present folkways make it difficult to achieve effective solutions that deeply contribute to human dignity and happiness.

The Quandary of Women

It is quite possible that most women in our rapidly changing civilization have a rougher time of it than men. A woman who lived on a farm two centuries ago was deeply needed and felt secure. She and her home were the center of vocation, recreation, and education. Although she worked hard, she was psychologically secure in her own feeling of worth. She was confident of the great need which she supplied in the lives of her husband and children. Today, household gadgets have relieved woman of some of the work, but the secure emotional foundations of her life have been largely swept away. The home is no longer the place where the family makes its living. Factories and offices beckon the father to a world of business not shared by the rest of his family. Schools grab up the children and take over the responsibility for educating them—frequently, in a way that is quite different from the training of the parents. Although television has added to the recreational aspect of modern homes, most of the really exciting things happen away from home. Automobiles scatter the family in all directions, and the home is often used primarily as a hotel in which to eat and sleep.

The modern housewife is expected to be a fascinating and energetic companion to her husband. She
must meet the endless needs of her children. And at the same time she must operate the household,
including food-gathering at the grocery store. In addition to these three full-time occupations which stretch her out pretty thin, she should find time to develop her own mind and body, including frequent trips to the beauty salon. After a number of years of this tearing in every direction, most wives begin to feel that, "Life is passing me by." They begin to question their self-worth. They realize that they are needed less and less by their husbands and children. Unhappiness, divorce, suicide bitterness, and blighted personalities are often the consequences of our rapidly changing culture.

Auto Addiction

Auto Addiction Curing the problem would bring a better life for all by Jason Montgomery

Addicts devote themselves to satisfying some personal desire. They are happy when they have their fix, but miserable in withdrawal. "Good" addicts, such as music addicts, are harmless, and we ignore them. "Bad" addicts are those who hurt others to feed their habit. Society prosecutes them-unless their addiction is automobiles. Despite their social cost, auto addicts are pampered. For, although cars are convenient appliances, they cost dearly. And, while a few cars are thrilling to drive and a few are beautiful, cars generally bring danger and ugliness.

Auto addiction is detrimental to society. But car addicts don't seem to care about the downside of their addiction. They are too concerned that their car gives them an identity, that it takes them everywhere they want to go whenever they wish to go there. Since they are totally occupied in living the sort of life that their addiction prescribes, we must indicate how we all pay for their addiction. The first place that auto addicts hurt us is the pocketbook. Cars are expensive, and consume money that would otherwise be spent on something of more lasting value. Perverse values are revealed when $50,000 automobiles are as common as hungry children.

Auto addicts choose to live away from their work, and their long commute costs plenty. Auto dependence spreads out the city and increases infrastructure cost. Because auto addicts will not use public transportation, they require expensive highways.

Other costs are less obvious. Valuable land becomes parking lots, and its value decreases. Our perfectly good downtown deteriorates as the auto addicts drive to suburban malls. "No free parking downtown," they complain. To them, "free" means "free to me." Auto addicts do not recognize that someone pays for "free" parking. And "free" roads, too. In his unnecessarily big and expensive car, the auto addict commutes for hours every week. But, commuting is inefficient and unproductive. It costs the commuter, the commuter's family, and society.

Auto addiction reduces the quality of life. Urban highways are ugly, parking lots are ugly. Automobiles offend other senses, too: fumes stink, cars pollute the air, they are noisy. Commuters reduce the quality of life in communities through which they pass. Inner-city residents must either fight to protect their neighborhoods or put up with danger, pollution, noise, and unsightliness. The auto addicts lose out, too. They lose because commuting is both stressful and isolating. Alone in their cars, they have no chance encounters with friends or neighbors. These connections are vital to personal and social well-being.

Auto addiction is a tough problem to solve because the addicts won't accept responsibility. A part of being an addict is to hold others accountable for the painful results of your habit. When all the car freaks exercise their addiction during rush hour, they sometimes create a traffic jam. Who do they blame for the jam? Not themselves; not other addicts. They blame the city or unyielding communities.

Auto addicts refuse to accept that the traffic problem results from too many cars, not from inadequate roads. So, we cannot look to the addict to voluntarily cure his or her addiction. However, we can help them to consider alternatives. We can restrict the city's expansive growth. We can refuse to widen streets where such widening diminishes community life. We can protect inner city communities from commuter pollution to the extent that we have protected outlying areas.

We can tax auto addicts so they pay for their addiction. We can increase gasoline taxes, and we can base registration fees on the size of the car being registered. We can make inner-city communities more attractive to those who now just drive on by. We can improve our public transportation system and be more innovative in improving its quality and convenience. Implementing such changes is difficult because there are so many auto addicts.

And yet, we must act because a city of auto addicts is not sustainable. Sooner or later, auto addiction will end because of its costs, its inefficiency, and the ugliness it creates. If we all begin to take the cure, we will have a more livable city now and in the future.

Jason Montgomery is a retired professor of human ecology. This article originally appeared in World Without Cars newsletter.

"I BEAT MY WIFE"

"I BEAT MY WIFE LAST NIGHT" by Ayodele Oyadeyi

So it happened last night that my wife annoyed me, and I thoroughly dealt with her. I had complained about her salty dinner only for her to make endless protestations about how I never appreciate anything she takes pain to do for me in the house. When I felt I had had enough of her verbal diarrhoea I ordered her to stop. She would not. Then one thing led to another and one slap followed another; ending in belt lashes and several kicks. I threw her outside, locked my house and wouldn't allow her in till some kind neighbors came to beg me on her behalf. No, it did not start yesterday. Although while we were courting I never laid my hands on her, the truth is that on the countless occasions she had drawn my ire, I had flogged her severally in my mind. If she had looked deeper into my eyes, she would have seen that I was beating her.

Anyway, this morning I woke up and felt remorseful, I apologized to her and professed my undying love for her. I do not understand why she has to turn me into a beast before she gets my message. Expectantly she forgave me. In fairness to her, I think she has a good heart though her behaviors and manners almost always fall short of those of an ideal wife.

Many who analyse physical altercations between boyfriends and girlfriends and between husbands and wives attribute it to illiteracy and/or lack of religious understanding, it is not true in majority of cases and in ours, it is patently false. I am well read and I am a Christian. I have very strong spiritual understanding and I have even counselled singles and couples.

Therefore you can see that I am neither bad nor evil but when you have a particularly difficult girlfriend or wife, you may appear evil and bad. My lady needs to learn how to respect and submit to a man, she needs to learn how to take care of the home, she needs to learn basic cleanliness, she needs to be humble, she needs to be romantic, she needs to be industrious, she needs to be productive, she needs to learn how to cook, she needs to respect my privacy, she needs to be sensitive to my moods…the list goes on almost endlessly. Honestly, there are times I feel she really needs to go back and learn ‘wifery’ from her mother.

People have asked me why I married her, wrong question. Right question is why she married me and why she is still with me! Yes, I loved her and proposed marriage but she could have said no on the spot or thereafter when hints of my person began to emerge. I never hid my person from her. I believe she saw enough to make a decision. Maybe it was my finesse, touch of polish, fine boy-ness, glare, sophistication, or class, maybe she wanted all that and maybe what she wanted blinded her from seeing what she needed. Perhaps she hoped I would change, nothing was and nothing is wrong with me. I hate the feeling that somehow I had forced her to marry me. It was me she wanted, and this is me!

To you puritans who would judge me, why has she not left me if I am so bad? For your information, I have beaten her more than once, though I am not proud of it, but she has had ample opportunities to just walk away. I believe God destined us to be together, and I believe that it is well by His grace.

Look, every relationship has issues. Couples disagree all the time, couples misunderstand themselves all the time and we are no less different.

Disarmament for World Peace

  by: The 14th Dalai Lama of Tibet

Through history, mankind has pursued peace one way or another. It is too optimistic to imagine that world peace may finally be within our grasp? I do not believe that there has been an increase in the amount of people's hatred, only in their ability to manifest it in vastly destructive weapons. On the other hand, bearing witness to the tragic evidence of the mass slaughter caused by such weapons in our country has given us the opportunity to control war. To do so, it is clear we must disarm.

Disarmament can occur only within the context of new political and economic relationships. Before we consider this issue in detail, it is worth imagining the kind of peace process from which we would benefit most. This is fairly self - evident. First we should work on eliminating nuclear weapons, next, biological and chemical ones, then offensive arms, and finally, defensive ones. At the same time, to safeguard the peace, we should start developing in one or more global regions an international police force made up of equal number of members from each nation under a collective command. Eventually this force would cover the whole world.

Because the dual process of disarmament and development of a joint force would be both multilateral and democratic, the right of majority to criticize or even intervene in the event of one nation violating the basic rules would be ensured. Moreover, with all large armies eliminated and all conflict such as border disputes subject to the control of the joint international force, large and small nations would be truly equal. Such reforms would result in a stable international environment.

Of course, the immense financial dividend reaped from the cessation of arms production would also provide a fantastic windfall for global development. Today, the nations of the world spend trillions of dollars annually on upkeep of the military. Can you imagine how many hospital beds, schools and homes this money could fund? In addition, as I mentioned above, the awesome proportion of scarce resources squandered on military development not only prevents the elimination of poverty, illiteracy and disease, but also requires the sacrifice of precious human intelligence. Our scientists are extremely bright. Why should their brilliance be wasted on such dreadful endeavors when it could be used for positive global development?

The great deserts of the world such as the Sahara and Gobi could be cultivated to increase food production and ease over-crowding. Many countries now face years of severe drought. New, less expensive methods of desalinization could be developed to render seawater suitable for human consumption and other uses. There are many pressing issues in the fields of energy and health to which our scientist could more usefully address themselves. Since the world economy would grow more rapidly as a result of their efforts, they could even be paid more!

Our planet is blessed with vast natural treasures. If we use them properly, beginning with elimination of militarism and war, truly, every human being will be able to live a wealthy, well-cared-for life.

Naturally, global peace cannot occur all at once. Since conditions around the world are varied, its spread will have to be incremental. But there is no reason why it cannot begin in one region and then spread gradually from one continent to another.

I would like to propose that regional communities like the European Community be established as an integral part of the more peaceful world we are trying to create. Looking at the post Cold War environment objectively, such communities are plainly the most natural and desirable components of a new world order. As we can see, the almost gravitational pull of our growing interdependence necessitates new, more cooperative structures. The European Community is pioneering the way in this endeavor, negotiating the delicate balance between economic, military and political collectively on the one hand and the sovereign rights of member states on the other. I am greatly inspired by this work. I also believe that the new Commonwealth of Independent Sates is grappling with similar issues and that the seeds of such a community are already present in the minds of many of its constituent republics. In this context, I would briefly like to talk about the future of my own country, Tibet, and China.

Like the former Soviet Union, Communist China is a multinational state, artificially constructed under the impetus of an expansionist ideology and up to now administered by force in colonial fashion. A peaceful, prosperous and above all politically stable future for china lies in its successfully fulfilling not only its own people's wishes for a more open, democratic system, but also of its eighty million so-called "national minorities", who want to regain their freedom. For real happiness to return to the heart of Asia - home to one-fifth of the human race - a pluralistic, democratic, mutually cooperative community of sovereign states must replace what is currently called the People's Republic of China.

Of course, such a community need not be limited to those presently under Chinese Communist Domination, such as Tibetans, Mongols, and Uighurs. The people of Hong Kong, those seeking an independent Taiwan, and even those suffering under other communist governments in North Korea, Vietnam, Laos and Cambodia might also be interested in building an Asian Community. However, it is especially urgent that those ruled by the Chinese Communist consider doing so. Properly pursued, it could help save China from violent dissolution; regionalism and a return to the chaotic turmoil that has so afflicted this great nation throughout the twentieth century. Currently china's political life is so polarized that there is every reason to fear an early recurrence of bloodshed and tragedy. Each of us- every member of the world community - has a moral responsibility to help avert the immense suffering that civil strife would bring to China's vast population.

I believe that the very process of dialogue, modernization and compromise involved in building a community of Asian states would itself give real hope of peaceful evolution to a new order in China. From the very start, the member states of such a community might agree to decide its defense and international relations policies together. There would be many opportunities for cooperation. The critical point is that we find a peaceful, nonviolent way for the forces of freedom, democracy and moderation to emerge successfully from the current atmosphere of unjust repression.

by: His Holiness the 14th Dalai Lama of Tibet

"Being Aware of an Emotion Without Labelling" by: "K"

Question: How can one be aware of an emotion without naming or labelling it? If I am aware of a feeling, I seem to know what that feeling is almost immediately after it arises. Or do you mean something different when you say, ‘Do not name’?

K : Why do we name anything? Why do we give a label to a flower, to a person, to a feeling? Either to communicate one’s feelings, to describe the flower and so on and so on; or to identify oneself with that feeling. Is not that so? I name something, a feeling, to communicate it. ‘I am angry.’ Or I identify myself with that feeling in order to strengthen it or to dissolve it or to do something about it  We give a name to something, to a rose, to communicate it to others or, by giving it a name, we think we have understood it.

We say, ”That is a rose”, rapidly look at it and go on. By giving it a name, we think we have understood it; we have classified it and think that thereby we have understood the whole content and beauty of that flower. By giving a name to something, we have merely put it into a category and we think we have understood it; we don’t look at it more closely. If we do not give it a name, however, we are forced to look at it. That is we approach the flower or whatever it is with a newness, with a new quality of examination; we look at it as though we had never looked at it before. Naming is a very convenient way of disposing of things and of people - by saying that they are Germans, Japanese, Americans, Hindus, you can give them a label and destroy the label. If you do not give a label to people you are forced to look at them and then it is much more difficult to kill somebody.

You can destroy the label with a bomb and feel righteous, but if you do not give a label and must therefore look at the individual thing - whether it is a man or a flower or an incident or an emotion - then you are forced to consider your relationship with it, and with the action following. So terming or giving a label is a very convenient way of disposing of anything, of denying, condemning or justifying it. That is one side of the question. What is the core from which you name, what is the centre which is always naming, choosing, labelling.


We all feel there is a centre, a core, do we not?, from which we are acting, from which we are judging, from which we are naming. What is that centre, that core? Some would like to think it is a spiritual essence, God, or what you will. So let us find out what is that core, that centre, which is naming, terming, judging. Surely that core is memory, isn’t it? A series of sensations, identified and enclosed - the past, given life through the present. That core, that centre, feeds on the present through naming, labelling, remembering.

We will see presently, as we unfold it, that so long as this centre, this core, exists, there can be no understanding. It is only with the dissipation of this core that there is understanding, because, after all, that core is memory; memory of various experiences which have been given names, labels, identifications. With those named and labelled experiences, from that centre, there is acceptance and rejection, determination to be or not to be, according to the sensations, pleasures and pains of the memory of experience. So that centre is the word. If you do not name that centre, is there a centre? That is if you do not think in terms of words, if you do not use words, can you think?

Thinking comes into being through verbalization; or verbalization begins to respond to thinking. The centre, the core is the memory of innumerable experiences of pleasure and pain, verbalized. Watch it in yourself, please, and you will see that words have become much more important, labels have become much more important, than the substance; and we live on words. For us, words like truth, God, have become very important - or the feeling which those words represent. When we say the word ‘American’, ‘Christian’, ‘Hindu’ or the word ‘anger’ - we are the word representing the feeling.

But we don’t know what that feeling is, because the word has become important. When you call yourself a Buddhist, a Christian, what does the word mean, what is the meaning behind that word, which you have never examined? Our centre, the core is the word, the label. If the label does not matter, if what matters is that which is behind the label, then you are able to inquire but if you are identified with the label and stuck with it, you cannot proceed. And we are identified with the label: the house, the form, the name, the furniture, the bank account, our opinions, our stimulants and so on and so on. We are all those things - those things being represented by a name. The things have become important, the names, the labels; and therefore the centre, the core, is the word.

If there is no word, no label, there is no centre, is there? There is a dissolution, there is an emptiness - not the emptiness of fear, which is quite a different thing. There is a sense of being as nothing; because you have removed all the labels or rather because you have understood why you give labels to feelings and ideas you are completely new, are you not? There is no centre from which you are acting. The centre, which is the word, has been dissolved. The label has been taken away and where are you as the centre? You are there but there has been a transformation. That transformation is a little bit frightening; therefore, you do not proceed with what is still involved in it; you are already beginning to judge it, to decide whether you like it or don’t like it. You don’t proceed with the understanding of what is coming but you are already judging, which means that you have a centre from which you are acting.

Therefore you stay fixed the moment you judge; the words ‘like’ and ‘dislike’ become important. But what happens when you do not name? You look at an emotion, at a sensation, more directly and therefore have quite a different relationship to it, just as you have to a flower when you do not name it. You are forced to look at it anew. When you do not name a group of people, you are compelled to look at each individual face and not treat them all as the mass. Therefore you are much more alert, much more observing, more understanding; you have a deeper sense of pity, love; but if you treat them all as the mass, it is over.

If you do not label, you have to regard every feeling as it arises. When you label, is the feeling different from the label? Or does the label awaken the feeling? Please think it over. When we label, most of us intensify the feeling. The feeling and the naming are instantaneous. If there were a gap between naming and feeling, then you could find out if the feeling is different from the naming and then you would be able to deal with the feeling without naming it.

The problem is this, is it not?, how to be free from a feeling which we name, such as anger? Not how to subjugate it, sublimate it, suppress it, which are all idiotic and immature, but how to be really free from it? To be really free from it, we have to discover whether the word is more important than the feeling. The word ‘anger’ has more significance than the feeling itself. Really to find that out there must be a gap between the feeling and the naming. That is one part.

If I do not name a feeling, that is to say if thought is not functioning merely because of words or if I do not think in terms of words, images or symbols, which most of us do - then what happens? Surely the mind then is not merely the observer. When the mind is not thinking in terms of words, symbols, images, there is no thinker separate from the thought, which is the word. Then the mind is quiet, is it not? - not made quiet, it is quiet. When the mind is really quiet, then the feelings which arise can be dealt with immediately. It is only when we give names to feelings and thereby strengthen them that the feelings have continuity; they are stored up in the centre, from which we give further labels, either to strengthen or to communicate them.

When the mind is no longer the centre, as the thinker made up of words, of past experiences - which are all memories, labels, stored up and put in categories, in pigeonholes - when it is not doing any of those things, then, obviously the mind is quiet. It is no longer bound, it has no longer a centre as the me - my house, my achievement, my work - which are still words, giving impetus to feeling and thereby strengthening memory. When none of these things is happening, the mind is very quiet. That state is not negation. On the contrary, to come to that point, you have to go through all this, which is an enormous undertaking; it is not merely learning a few sets of words and repeating them like a school-boy - ‘not to name’, ‘not to name’.

To follow through all its implications, to experience it, to see how the mind works and thereby come to that point when you are no longer naming, which means that there is no longer a centre apart from thought - surely this whole process is real meditation. When the mind is really tranquil, then it is possible for that which is immeasurable to come into being. Any other process, any other search for reality, is merely self-projected, homemade and therefore unreal. But this process is arduous and it means that the mind has to be constantly aware of everything that is inwardly happening to it. To come to this point, there can be no judgement or justification from the beginning to the end - not that this is an end.

There is no end, because there is something extraordinary still going on. This is no promise. It is for you to experiment, to go into yourself deeper and deeper and deeper, so that all the many layers of the centre are dissolved and you can do it rapidly or lazily. It is extraordinarily interesting to watch the process of the mind, how it depends on words, how the words stimulate memory or resuscitate the dead experience and give life to it. In that process the mind is living either in the future or in the past.

Therefore words have an enormous significance, neurologically as well as psychologically. And please do not learn all this from me or from a book. You cannot learn it from another or find it in a book. What you learn or find in a book will not be the real. But you can experience it, you can watch yourself in action, watch yourself thinking, see how you think, how rapidly you are naming the feeling as it arises - and watching the whole process frees the mind from its centre. Then the mind, being quiet, can receive that which is eternal.

by: J.Krishnamurti

-often the author referred to himself as "the speaker" or simply "K". 

"No name can adequately describe the man who represented that which is nameless."