I’m sorry if I appear to have been personally critical of you (and Michael) in my comments. I know that you and Michael are serious people, and have spent years exploring this terrain. You have obviously both made authentic discoveries about the mind that others on this forum (including myself) can genuinely benefit from.
The concern I feel is related to the manner in which you seem to articulate your insights in a totalising form, without explicitly acknowledging that you are not in fact speaking from a space of total insight (unless you are?). You must see that this can lead to confusion. For instance, you have spoken of
and have made certain claims such as
without seeming to acknowledge that this is not a total insight of your own, but is merely what you feel Krishnamurti has taught (or are you indeed claiming that it is a total insight of your own? - you see, it is not clear from what you have written which one it is).
I think this stems partly from your characters, your personalities, your background - so you tend to be emphatic, assertive, rather than conciliatory and dialogic (and there is really nothing wrong with this per se).
But when one doesn’t admit that one’s insights are partial (if they are partial), there is a danger of (unwittingly) setting oneself up as an absolute authority (about the mind, about what K said, etc). Do you see that?
For instance, you wrote above that
Now, I am not rejecting this or trying to be patronising, but do you see that this statement is ambiguous? You might merely be saying something the Buddhists often say - namely that
The truth indeed has never been preached by the Buddha, seeing that one has to realise it within oneself
in order to draw attention to the importance of realising the things that K has talked about (rather than just reading his words and remaining comfortable with his words).
But your statement might also be interpreted as meaning that you yourself have “the key”, which others who read Krishnamurti on this forum do not, and that this gives you a special authority over others (with regards to matters of “universal truth”). Do you see what I mean?
The general context of my concern however is not about you (and Michael) personally; rather it is the fact that there are some people on this forum who are openly calling themselves arhats (in Buddhism an arhat or arahant is someone who has had total insight into the nature of existence and achieved nirvana), claiming to have dissolved their egos, and even to have undergone the same mysterious process that K talks about in his Notebook - while it is clearly evident (not least from the occasional narcissism and vulgarity of their comments and the condescension they sometimes have for others) that they are (at least partly?) deluding themselves, and using this authority for their own purposes.
They have had partial insights - probably they have. Many people who explore these matters for years, or who spend their time meditating, journeying into themselves, have all kinds of rich and worthwhile experiences and insights into themselves (I heard many such accounts during my time at Brockwood!); but if these partial insights are then dressed up as total insight, then something false has taken place. - Wouldn’t you say that?
The net result of people acting in this way - as we can observe from the world of religion, from the milieu of modern ‘spirituality’ - is that it often leads to abuse, to authoritarianism, to destructive conflict of one kind or another. And this is why I felt the need to draw attention to it here.
I am emphatically not saying that this is what you and Michael are yourselves doing (at least, I hope not!) - I am merely drawing attention to the danger of totalising statements that are made without some human context for them (presenting them, for instance, as forms of open enquiry - where we are all on an equal footing as learners about ourselves, in the common boat of shared human consciousness, where we all acknowledge the limitations of our knowledge, our partial insights, our comprehension of universal truth, etc).
I hope it needn’t be said that I myself am not speaking from any kind of total insight (!!) - but I have been around the block long enough to see that sometimes people do really do this, and the problems this can create for others (who maybe new, shy or merely gullible) who maybe can’t tell the difference.
As to your question
I think that this is an entirely reasonable (and rich) question to put, but it is one that may require a new thread. If you feel like starting a new thread with that as the question, I will gladly join you there. 
