I thought we were going to go into the matter of conflict.
Now I want to respond to your question.
Have we addressed the question of whether K is still relevant? If you feel that K is still relevant, can you pinpoint the essential nature of the relevance? Is it in a K phrase or two? Or is it something else about K that is not tied down to words?
It has been pointed out earlier that relevant means " to bring into or to light."
Krishnaji has raised issues in such a way whose depth may have eluded us.
What remains is the need not to be blinded by it and to realize that we have to be aware of it.
By the way, are you related to or named after: Maharishi Mahesh Yogy?
Definitely not! My name is Mahesh but some friends call me Maheshji.
It would appear, Paul Mahesh Dimmock, that you are taking Krishnamurti’s “statement” that “Anonymity is Greatness” a bit too literally.
That is what happens when you conflate significance with meaning. Life has significance. It has no meaning.
The same goes for truth. Die to love, die to understanding, die to transformation, die to K, etc. That singular message is the essence of Krishnamurti, Tao, etc.
The observer is the observed. We are nothing but words and meaning. That is the actual. Punkt.
If I was a betting man - I’d say Mr Maheshji-san was not Dimmock. Based only on the difference in what they say. But I don’t know.
(20 characters) WTF?
Actually, he’s contradicting himself by using a pseudonym. When he was Paul he boasted about his righteousness for using his real name and how deceitful it is not to.
Funny how these kinds of conversations throw a different light on things. Beginning to think maybe K is quite relevant even though 40 years dead. Better than this strange rubbish any day.
Not that it would have made any difference but again a train of thought that can be left , right?
(20 characters) Right. Left. xx
Yes, if one deals harmoniously with either the left or the right, one stays afloat within the double dutch,
much played in my youth. 
