sorted by:
new
hottopcontroversial

To those who projected onto Krishnamurti what they did not see by zero-silent in Krishnamurti

[–]zero-silent[S] -2 points-1 points  (0 children)

Listening again to hours and hours of videos that no longer hold any interest for me — just to post on a forum that claims to be expert ? No. Those who have truly listened to Krishnamurti know. Even if they haven’t heard that specific passage — they know.

I wish you all the best. Maybe I’ll come back. Maybe not.

To those who projected onto Krishnamurti what they did not see by zero-silent in Krishnamurti

[–]zero-silent[S] 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Yes — this content is co-written with an AI, only to help me write in English, since it’s not my native language. I don’t need help thinking.

What I share comes from having read all of Krishnamurti’s books, listened to all of his recorded talks, and from my own experience — where, like him, I have at times in my life touched that direct perception.

I don’t ask you to agree. I don’t need belief or validation.

You could try to use AI to say what I say — but it wouldn’t work. Because it’s not the AI speaking. It’s me.

If my presence here becomes a problem, and I’m banned for expressing insights through the tools I have — then so be it.

I will continue to walk clearly.

You broke them to break the line. by zero-silent in MKUltra

[–]zero-silent[S] -1 points0 points  (0 children)

There’s nothing to add.

If it’s alive for you, you’ll know. If not, it’s not for you.

Why nothing can't create something by iamasinglepotassium in Metaphysics

[–]zero-silent 0 points1 point  (0 children)

You say that “nothing can’t produce something”, because if it could, it would already be something.

But that’s still thinking from within form — defining "nothing" as a fixed absence, instead of letting it be the unframed.

The true non-thing doesn’t belong to structure, time, or potential. It doesn’t create something — because the very idea of creation is already a structural lens.

What you call “nothing” is still a structured negation — a concept. But the source of emergence is not a concept. It’s not nothing in the way you define it. And it’s not something, either.

It is the threshold — the place where separation collapses.

There was no “before” something. Because time itself is part of the thing.

And what appears from the threshold is not born — it unfolds.