What a waste of time.

This post was last updated by David Loucks (account deleted) Fri, 11 Feb 2011.

Hi David

Read Amber's posts, it is Eve, almost.

I don't know

dhirendra singh wrote:
Read Amber's posts, it is Eve, almost.

Why won't you let go of Eve? Are you dhirendra singh?

This is a K forum. The least we could do is try not to behave as if we are individual selves. If K said that the self is an illusion and that it is conditioning that brings about a situation where we, the human consciousness, act from a center, then let's let go of the habit os behaving as though Eve exists.

Why don't you come on as Jagjit Singh or Woo Ting May? Sticking to being dhirendra singh is so conventional. Boring.

ayar hari wrote:
Why won't you let go of Eve?

He has. He's embraced Amber as Eve's replacement.

ayar hari wrote:
Why won't you let go of Eve

Let go? Even I don't know who is Eve?David was missing some particular pattern of words, so I suggested him to read Amber's post.

I am only sticked with myself, all I know is me.

ayar hari wrote:
Are you dhirendra singh?

oh no!actually I am Bill gate, but a computer powered with Artificial Intelligence replaced me, and threw me away, and now the world see that super computer as Bill gate.What a pity!

ayar hari wrote:
The least we could do is try not to behave as if we are individual selves.

Right madam Cleopatra, you looked very good in titanic

ayar hari wrote:
Sticking to being dhirendra singh is so conventional. Boring.

yes, really how boring

I don't know

nick carter wrote:
He's embraced Amber

It was very good feeling, to embrace her.

I don't know

ayar hari wrote:
Why won't you let go of Eve? Are you dhirendra singh?

For the same reasons we all find it so hard to let go of any image or any idea or hole we are stuck in....it creates a sense of security that you know something you clearly don't.

David Loucks wrote:
Eve, in her discussion on the Experimenter's Corner was the only intelligent thing I have read on that whole thread. She's absolutely right in her exposure of Prasanna and his relentless hacking away at what K pointed out and the arrogant promotion of his own limited ideas.

Oh thank you I am so flattered...A rose by any other name is still a rose....All one has to do is to listen to the voice and not the image and the reactions they create. Unfortunately, here as in any other place all we hear is our own image maker.

If we really listen to K's voice and not the authority, one will find K in every flower and cloud yes and even in our own voice.

Amber Cinquini wrote:
If we really listen to K's voice and not the authority, one will find K in every flower and cloud yes and even in our own voice.

Nauseating sentimentality aside, you haven't given a thought to what you've said: "Don't listen to authority. Listen to K".

nick carter wrote:
Nauseating sentimentality aside, you haven't given a thought to what you've said: "Don't listen to authority. Listen to K".

Look in the mirror lately Mr. Carter?

Nausiating jumping to conlusions aside, and not reading between the lines...is it what I am saying?

Can I listen to what you say and not make you authority? Is listening automatically make you my authority?

Does listening necessitate making an image of authority?

This post was last updated by Amber Cinquini Wed, 09 Feb 2011.

There's no one in this forum who hasn't made K their authority, and I should know. I'm employed by an international de-progamming organization that has assigned me to the K-cultists. My work is to point out that once you're interested in what K was talking about, K is of no importance at all, and you can quit hanging onto and repeating his words. As an assigment, it's quite futile, I must admit, but I'm paid well enough and, who knows, maybe some of you wake up.

nick carter wrote:
As an assigment, it's quite futile, I must admit, but I'm paid well enough and, who knows, maybe some of you wake up.

You can start your assignment by waking yourself up and 'listening' to what you say, without making your image maker the authority.

What you are not seeing is, that you place your self in place of authority, you do not in fact challenging it.

This is an old game the mind plays with one who thinks they have given up authority, it is a game played within the prison, just the interior decorating changes.

dhirendra singh wrote:
It was very good feeling, to embrace her.

Hey Indian lion, your mind is running away with you. How do you know that her breasts are not as humongous as your mother's.

Sikh women are really something. When they are 17, they are as thin as bamboo slips. When they are 37, they are as fat as elephants.

Is it ghee or sex?

All Sikhs are Singhs but not all Singhs are Sikhs.

nick carter wrote:
There's no one in this forum who hasn't made K their authority, and I should know.

Do you, nick?

Seriously, you are not the only one who said this. Yet, the very people who lament this K-cult phenomenon, are part of the cult. These people may not be the common run of K-cultists - who are typically touchy-feely, feel-good, do-gooder white westerners and educated Indians - but they basically run on the same program.

So, that brings us to you and me "who should know". What are the tell-tale signs that indicate that the two of us are not K-junkies?

Let me offer you one evidence that I am clean and not a K-addict. K's conduct in his private life, to my mind, contradicts his teaching on right living. I don't agree with K cult rationale that gives K a pass because he is human or that his private life has nothing to do with the teaching.

And you say?

ayar hari wrote:
Let me offer you one evidence that I am clean and not a K-addict. K's conduct in his private life, to my mind, contradicts his teaching on right living. I don't agree with K cult rationale that gives K a pass because he is human or that his private life has nothing to do with the teaching.

Question that? On the grounds of relevance and on the grounds that we don't really know why he did or didn't any more than I can tell you why you drink or not drink?

Are you sure that what he did or didn't do contradicts the teachings?

If I use him as authority on what I should do or not do, then you are right...but if I discover what is true for my self, how relevant is what he says or doesn't say?

nick carter wrote:
My work is to point out that once you're interested in what K was talking about, K is of no importance at all, and you can quit hanging onto and repeating his words.

That is the seed of conflict in this forum. each one trying to do the same thing.

The wise ones struck a path for those who were in the cave; the seven priests drove them on with thoughts pressing forward. They found all the paths of the right way;
the one who knew was the one who entered them, bowing low.

We are watching, not waiting, not expecting anything to happen but watching without end. JK

ayar hari wrote:
Let me offer you one evidence that I am clean and not a K-addict. K's conduct in his private life, to my mind, contradicts his teaching on right living.

Amber Cinquini wrote:
we don't really know why he did

It did Ayar to give her evidence..
gb

We are watching, not waiting, not expecting anything to happen but watching without end. JK

yes it appears so,ganesan. :-)

ayar hari wrote:
K's conduct in his private life, to my mind, contradicts his teaching on right living

How do you say your yardstick of right living is right? How's brandy coming in there then?

This post was last updated by Kapila Kulasinghe Thu, 10 Feb 2011.

Kapila Kulasinghe wrote:
How's brandy coming in there then?

Brandy comes in from the house of Rémy Martin family first settled in the Cognac region of France and it is "Remy Martin Louis XIII Black Pearl Limited Edition". :-)

You just cannot stop yourself not tasting that, kapila!

ayar hari wrote:
Let me offer you one evidence that I am clean and not a K-addict. K's conduct in his private life, to my mind, contradicts his teaching on right living. I don't agree with K cult rationale that gives K a pass because he is human or that his private life has nothing to do with the teaching.

Apart from his affair with Rajagopal's wife, I don't know of any other scandalous or degenerate K behavior. What do you know that K addicts ought to know?

nick carter wrote:
Apart from his affair with Rajagopal's wife, I don't know of any other scandalous or degenerate K behavior. What do you know that K addicts ought to know?

Just you wait Mr. Higgins, Just you wait....you will find some new juicy stuff to avoid real change?

Take K's work and throw it into the trash bin....how having read the teaching relevant to your personal change?

Reading stuff here is total proof that you would greatly benefit from donating K's teachings to someone else.....

This post was last updated by Amber Cinquini Thu, 10 Feb 2011.

Amber Cinquini wrote:
Just you wait Mr. Higgins, Just you wait....you will find some new juicy stuff to avoid real change?
Take K's work and throw it into the trash bin....it is totally relevant to your personal change.

I'm sure you think you know what you're trying to say, but it's lost on me, whatever it is.

nick carter wrote:
I'm sure you think you know what you're trying to say, but it's lost on me, whatever it is.

***As you say it is all lost on you....we have finally reached communion of the mind and heart.

Mr. Carter...why discredit others in this forum or anywhere else? What is the motive need behind this? The reason? why not further clarity and understanding instead?

It is the premise that is the problem, which manifests itself as motive, tactics and intent?

This post was last updated by Amber Cinquini Thu, 10 Feb 2011.

Let me tell you all a secret....In time there will be lots of stories and biographies published about our lives with K, as is evident by the stories published about Christ at the time.

Some will try to corrupt the reputation of the the man,destroy the man and the teachings, others to 'protect' the teachings....they are ultimately all the same. Those who worship and those who discredit the man....***

The bottom line is not about K or the teachings, it is about us.

It does not matter if one chooses to escape with alcohol or with K, they are both the same....they both lead to the same place.

The difference is social acceptability and morality...which is an oxymoron.

This post was last updated by Amber Cinquini Thu, 10 Feb 2011.

nick carter wrote:
Apart from his affair with Rajagopal's wife, I don't know of any other scandalous or degenerate K behavior. What do you know that K addicts ought to know?

I did not contend that K's behavior was degenerate or scandalous. I merely stated that his behavior was inconsistent with his teaching on right living. The only moral judgment I would pass is on the K-addict who, firstly, refuses to see that K "said one thing and did another" and, secondly, separates the (if at all questionable) teacher from the (infallible) teaching.

You are suppose to scan me for K virus infection. Am I clean or not?

Nick Carter wrote:
Apart from his affair with Rajagopal's wife, I don't know of any other scandalous or degenerate K behavior. What do you know that K addicts ought to know?

K was not a very emotional person. He often used to end the relationships with his friends as well as fans abruptly. Rajagopal felt betrayed by certain K acts which prompted him to sue K on copyrights of his own works. The second victim was UG Krishnamurti. Despite repeated attempts to befriend K, UG failed miserably, the cause being K's detached, forgetful and callous nature. One fine day he gave up and decided to spend the rest of his life as a K hater. There have been other citations on how certain fans got hurt not recieving the attention they needed and deserved from K. He sometimes used to exercise unnecessary caution when his anonymous disciples in India wanted to touch his feet. Sharp actions such as those can cause deep hurts in sensitive souls.

K's criticsm of the much valued institutions like marriage and family were not recieved with open arms by all his admirers. Caustic remarks on family values deeply cherished by common people can hurt them deeply. We are not blaming K for that . He had no interest in relationships and stagnant images and obviously they used to die out quickly due to his transcendence of images. But such transcendence can not be received in right spirit by all the admirers alike. It is hard to please everyone with your way of living no matter how much you feel it is the only right way of living.

Sacred, Profound

Tihit Kumar1 wrote:
It is hard to please everyone with your way of living no matter how much you feel it is the only right way of living.

What you say is true but when you live among other people, it is considered proper to conform to their reasonable expectations of socially-acceptable norms.

What is on trial here is not K's conduct but our integrity. K could have behaved as an absolute scoundrel or a shining example of a perfect man. The issue is our refusal to tell the difference between the two. But when the chap involved was someone else like Tiger Woods, we burned him alive without hesitation.

Is that fair, tihit?

ayar hari wrote:
his behavior was inconsistent with his teaching on right living

Oh? What, specifically, did he do that was inconsistent with what he taught? Just curious.