I like the metaphor because we do decorate our prison, but it doesn’t apply to our condition because we can’t demolish our prison. If we could, we’d still be the jailer and the jailed.
All we can do (according to K) is to see our prison for what it is, and that seeing is the doing, the end of our imprisonment.
You say this as if you are not “the machinery of the self”. It’s necessary to acknowledge every thought and reaction that occurs, but it’s a mistake to pretend that you are better than what you are. When you catch yourself being yourself, learn from the encounter - don’t pretend there’s two of you.
You mean pretend to not be a pretender? 
Alright, there are two of you.
You got me! 
Krishnamurti speaks of a rational mind (as a sane mind) and of a mind without measure.
A rational mind is “not a mind without measure”. it is a measuring mind.
A mind without measure is not a “mind” as we know it.
Absolutely! A rational mind is a measuring mind. The thing is, is Krishnamurti saying that this mind without measure is inaccessible to a human being according to how we generally understand a human being is or does he mean that to have a rational mind is a prerequisite for a human being to have access to the mind without measure? The truth is Krishnamurti didn’t always mean the same thing when he used the word ‘mind’ as we well know and ‘mind’ is involved itself in a blur, we know though it is of utmost importance in human existence.
**Great point. K frequently used words in different ways, and, to the analytical reactive mind that’s immediately judging according to the conditioning, rather than listening, it gives the false impression that he was contradicting something he said elsewhere.
Here are a few examples of “rational” as in ‘sane, orderly’:
K: And to find the ground I must become terribly rational in my life.
K: Have no belief, absolute rational - you know - observation.
K: Now, the religious man, like ‘X’, the religious man Mr ‘X’, he says you can find it by becoming terribly rational in your life.
**And here’s ‘rational’ being used as in “reasonable” or “logical”:
K: There is no relationship if you belong to one group as opposed to another, or if you have committed yourself to one course of action based on some rational or irrational conclusion.
Howard,
So, summing it up, and to come back to my point, maybe we can say that a rational mind is not incompatible with the mind without measure, probably it is safe to say that the mind without measure includes the rational mind but obviously the rational mind can’t be the mind without measure. Similar to what Bohm said about logic and truth: Truth must be logical but logic isn’t truth.
“Truth must be logical”. I don’t think soo.
I think “Truth”, is always there. If the mind understood a pattern or a characteristic then words will pop out inside to describe it. If the mind could not figure it out, then there is no description. As there is no description in some cases, we cannot say “Truth must be logical”. Which is a sweeping statement to all the cases of our perception towards truth.
Please share your view 
**Yes, that description, use of words, seems ‘rational’, in the sense of sane and orderly. And yes, the word isn’t the thing…‘what actually is.’ I would just add that in an inquiry together (observing together) the emphasis is on listening and observation, and the “talk” is simply about ‘sharing what arises, out of the looking anew’.
Sivaram,
I think I understand your point to a certain extent. I think it is fair to say that we cannot describe truth, but we have a notion about how true something logical is. We know that truth or Truth is from moment to moment. Krishnamurti says that if we can repeat truth it is no longer truth. We must keep in mind that what we’re exploring is our existence as human beings who live in time, with a yearning for the timeless.
we know though it [the word “mind”] is of utmost importance in human existence
Even though its meaning is up for grabs
Seeing as how Krishnamurti used “mind” to refer to very different things, we have to decide whether we’re going to be similarly loose with the word, or decide for ourselves how to use it.
We can’t hold Krishnamurti to rules of grammar, syntax, and common usage if he didn’t feel bound by them, but if we take such liberties, we can’t be taken seriously.
This is validating the logic, which has been said as truth by someone. Yeah, it is common practice in the research, instead of believing it as truth. But there are lot of other phenomenon happening in nature, which we are not able to figure it out and describe. Truth is there always, less proportion of it has been described by mind and remaining is unknown. That is the reason I said, we cannot say “Truth must be logical”.
Sir, I did not understand this statement. If there is no repetition in truth, then why we are validating it. There is some difference in our understanding of truth.
What is truth, then?
ahem,
When one has discovered truth through insight, one owns it, but if you repeat a truth that you have not discovered yourself, it is no longer truth, right?
Sir,
Can I say it as a conclusion?
I do not know, just asking
sivaram,
They teach parrots to say things, like, “Polly want a cracker”, and after a while, the bird eventually says, “Polly want a cracker”; so, no it is not a conclusion. Therefore, it’s a parody of truth. (grin)
Inquiry,
Sorry, I meant the mind itself not the word. Mindfulness meditation and loving-kindness help understand the limits of language, yes.
Sir,
I am not saying that your understanding is just a conclusion. I felt it as a valid statement.
I have asked that mentioning a statement without discovering, is a conclusion or not.
Communication gap.