Ananta

Prior to Self-realization we think of ourselves as just a person and not "ever present awareness", we are ignorant of our true nature. We have an ignorance problem, because we are always already awareness, but we don't know it. To remove this ignorance, we need knowledge, specifically "Self-knowledge" wielded by a teacher. Yes, of course there are practices, but without the theory laying it all out, one would remain ignorant. Sure, there may be an exception here and there (ie, Jesus, buddha), that didn't require any theory, except their own Self-inquiry. So, you are already awareness, but you don't know this, aren't convinced or don't know what that means, therefore you need a combination of theory AND practice to gain liberation from experience and an understanding of your true nature, as awareness.

“Once maya is operating, awareness ‘assumes’ the role of Creator and "apparently" identifies with maya. Awareness in association with maya (ignorance) is then referred to as Isvara, or ‘God,’ the creator, preserver and destroyer of the objects in the dharmafield. As such it is also known as the macrocosmic mind, the causal body, or the deep-sleep state. Isvara, or maya, is a ‘limiting adjunct’ for awareness in that it causes awareness to appear as the limited world. Again, this implies a sequence of ‘events,’ which is not correct, because it infers time; we describe it so because we need to understand the distinction between the real and the apparently real, satya and mithya.” ~J. Swartz (Vedanta)

@Etagnwo, I'm over @Faceless , hes a total fraud. Every thing he says is word salad bullshit. Hopefully his followers @Nahm and @Marcus Sweden will just read Krishnamurti from his website, so they get accurate information. I'm outta here now. Literally.

...actually, thats exactly what faceless is doing about his "teaching"...oops, I meant Krishnamurti's. Hahaha

@Saumaya when did I defend it? Stating that someone doesn't know or understand the teachings is not defending. Not in my book at least.

I referenced Vedanta because faceless said- "Not escape what is “duality” to an idea of nonduality. Which is generally what nonduality teachings promote." He doesn't know what's promoted or not promoted.

What do you know about Advaita Vedanta? Probably nothing. So, you don't know what it is or what is taught. If you're talking about the neo-Advaita movement, that's got nothing to do with Vedanta.

@Faceless I think you're doing a shit ton of "MOVEMENT OF THOUGHT"....watch out, that'll get ya!

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!