Ananta

I don't listen to you, because your crazy.

Your version is word salad!

Haha, probably because you hadn't studied him enough yet...lmao. The jig is up!

It was my responsibility to expose you... and I did. Great! ...and now they know you're trying (very hard) to be Krishnamurti. Is this a movement in duality? Trying to be someone your not..lol.

Krishnamurti was an individual who did indeed teach, gave lectures, talks regarding his point of view, which have been labeled as teachings. The link below is from the Krishnamurti website. See the word "teachings" they use. https://krishnamurti-teachings.info/home.html His website also says, "The core of the teachings". So, you can say they're not teachings all day long, but apparently his own website says differently. No, you are using "his" approach. That's why you are using all his lingo and none of your own. I think we've already gone over this... you're taking "his" concepts/lingo and style and trying to pass it off as your own. Anyways, again, no problem if acknowledged, but I recall a somewhat recent post where you were specifically asked about your writing (and its origin) probably by @Etagnwo and you said it was your own, came from you. That was a lie and would've been the perfect opportunity to mention Krishnamurti, but you didnt. Sad really.

@Faceless It took me a bit to figure it out, but your using the "lingo" and writing style of Krishnamurti. (Except, you often sound like word salad.) ...hahaha. I read several of his lectures on-line tonight and it was totally obvious! (K's lingo- "accumulation of memory", Root, "Movement of thought", "dualistic movement", "psychological time", fear/memory/pleasure, gratification, "observing the fact"....etc) ...Sound familiar?? Btw, no problem that you are, but you should acknowledge him when ur asked where ur getting your supposed "teaching".

No

Let what comes come and let what goes go, all else is insanity. Another words, don't "reject or grasp" a pleasurable or painful experience.

@Etagnwo Just bypass Faceless posts. Don't acknowledge them, hes "baiting" you.

@Shanmugam Nice, good luck with the book. I remember when it was still just rattling around in your noggin'..lol

@now is forever

Oh we have a difference in word usage. That's the problem. I use awareness and consciousness interchangeably. I don't use emptiness at all. From what your saying it seems like you are using consciousness for phenomena (like Nisargadatta did), is that right? I find that very confusing. Lol And you are using emptiness like I would for awareness (or consciousness). Then, I think you're using awareness, like I would for being conscious or aware...a function of mind. Oye vey! lol

My take is this quote is false. Matter/objects "within" consciousness can be lighter or denser. Mind/intellect can identify with thought/ego and "seem" contracted. But, pure consciousness/awareness is ever present, at all times and is never high/low. It is unaffected by the "appearance" within it.

Bingo! I don't even have to post...lol.

@Etagnwo +1

@Azza You just arent grasping (or so it seems) what me and @Etagnwo are saying. It's ok.

Well said!

@pluto +1

Bingo! And only human subtle bodies have an intellect.

@Solace A rock is not a tree. A tree has a rudimentary subtle body, a rock does not.

It's actually the mind/intellect that is permeated/illumined by awareness that is aware. The rock has no mind, therefore can't be aware.

@DharmaKris Hello!

Ultimately, yes. It's all "ultimately" unreal/dream/illusion, but in the present moment, I "apparently" appear to exist. Im not talking about "time", as time is an illusion, ultimately, which seems your post was referring to. Example- I had a mother, she "apparently" existed for 71 yrs, but 2 months ago, she died. Who really died? Ultimately, an illusion, but on an "apparent" level, the person that I called mother that belongs in the story of "me". So, you'll say the story isn't real, ok it's not, ultimately, but "apparently", it is. The story continues even when you know it's only apparent and ultimately unreal. So, when I said that, imo, LOA is unreal, I meant that within the "apparent" world/universe we appear to be in, I don't think it exists, hence is unreal.

@Etagnwo +1

Not a problem.