I went through this phase, too. It ended when I realized that what K was trying (and, for me, failing) to get across, was blocked by my objection to his way of using (and, to me, abusing) the language.
Now that I think I’ve got the message, I see that shooting the messenger for his failure to speak “my language” was the conditioned brain’s reactive resistance to exposure. If this “breakthrough” makes any difference, it is greater awareness of and interest in the mechanics of egocentricity.
I think we agree that K’s message was flawed technically, imperfectly articulated and evolving, but I don’t think its technical imperfection is evidence or proof of its inaccuracy.
I think that Krishnamurti in his unconditional desire to tell us something vital did not take into account the usual use of words. He simply tried everything and used everything that, for example, a questioner brought in. Therefore, what he said can seem contradictory, because he was so flexible in the use of words that, depending on the context, he used a word in two different meanings.
There is a saying that seems fitting:
“Where can I find a person who forgets about words, so that I can talk to him?”
(Chuang Dsi)
Additionally, time seems to play a role in understanding. It makes a difference, I think, if something is valid right at this moment or if you are searching for a definitive truth.
The logic is simple :
An algorithm whose function is separation and conflict, when it is expressed, expresses itself. It cannot express itself differently.
It is clear if one can consider the following : absent separate identities, what does conflict even mean?
Good luck.
PS. The self as suffering is a base axiom shared by Christianity (suffering due to the arising of self from knowledge of good and evil, over acceptance of what is - aka God’s will) and Buddhism (4 noble truths)
This kind of statement is not allowed on kinfonet - lucky for you, you are in crazy rick’s musings thread! 
Maybe you would get into less trouble (with the K police) if you replaced the word “time” with “context”, or “causes and conditions”
I think it’s quite common for those who engage with Krishnamurti to reach a similar point.
What’s the message you got? Exposure to what, Krishnamurti’s worldview?
Agreed. I was talking about the flawedness of inference as an epistemological tool.
Tag Ute! I agree. He was evolving all his life, and he never tried (afaik) to create a consistent system, language, methodology. And that goes along with what you said about timing. Krishnamurti didn’t try (again, afaik, correct me if I’m wrong!) to present things for posterity. His insights and power were of the moment and might not translate so well beyond the moment?
Aha! Apologies, I thought you were arguing that “We are in constant conflict,” which is what I’ve been saying all along. That I have an issue with, since ‘we’ might be in a self-less moment. But you are arguing that “The self is in constant conflict, by definition!” And that I agree with, given the meaning that self has here.
Hi Rick! I think that his insight into the human psyche, into the nature of conflict was and is possible at any time and the words he used to talk about it arose from the moment, the situation, the people he was talking to.
I really hope Rick is not too hard on me 
That freedom is not possible when the brain is confined and limited to its content.
We’re getting into subtle territory, and I wonder what can be gained by going there - especially considering what a bunch of blind bumbling geezers we are.
Questions like : when are we not ourselves? are pretty tricky to nail down.
and as you say our definition of self (especially the one you provided which could include hair and toenail clippings, and even non human gut microorganisms as being part of the self) might not be correct.
I’ll aim for just hard enough.
When thought is the hammer. Feeling might be a better way in?
Are feelings more trustworthy than thoughts when, as we know, thoughts induce feelings and feelings incite thoughts? Are they not too entangled to assume one is a better indicator than the other?
Honestly I don’t know. I’d like to think so, since I’m a feeler. And feelings feel realer, to me anyway. But I agree that thought and feeling are deeply interwoven, most thoughts have a feeling valence, and most feelings generate thoughts. It might not make much sense to regard them as distinct. Thought-feelings might be truer than thoughts and feelings.
Shri Anirvan said that “emotions are misplaced sensations”…makes sense once the ‘self’ is gone?
Who/what knows when the self is gone? Might it be that the new self is so radically different from the old self that it seems like no self at all?
I’m currently learning a song about some cowboy who crossed the whole county to go kill his lover, because feelings (the feeling of what he calls love)