|
Post by Reefs on Sept 16, 2021 4:10:51 GMT -5
WHO ARE YOU WITHOUT YOUR SPIRITUAL STORY?
Please, don't talk to me about 'Pure Awareness' or 'Dwelling in the Absolute'. I want to see how you treat your partner, your kids, your parents, your precious body.
Please, don't lecture me about 'the illusion of the separate self' or how you achieved permanent bliss in just 7 days. I want to feel a genuine warmth radiating from your heart. I want to hear how well you listen, take in information that doesn't fit your personal philosophy. I want to see how you deal with people who disagree with you.
Don't tell me how awakened you are, how free you are from ego. I want to know you beneath the words. I want to know what you're like when troubles befall you. If you can fully allow your pain and not pretend to be invulnerable. If you can feel your anger yet not step into violence. If you can grant safe passage to your sorrow yet not be its slave.
If you can feel your shame and not shame others: If you can x up, and admit it. If you can say 'sorry', and really mean it. If you can be fully human in your glorious divinity.
Don't talk to me about your spirituality, friend. I'm really not that interested.
I only want to meet YOU. Know your precious heart. Know the beautiful human struggling for the light.
Before 'the spiritual one'. Before all the clever words.
- Jeff Foster
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Sept 16, 2021 4:51:40 GMT -5
Is Jeff on board here?
|
|
|
Post by inavalan on Sept 16, 2021 12:37:04 GMT -5
WHO ARE YOU WITHOUT YOUR SPIRITUAL STORY? ... I only want to meet YOU. Know your precious heart. Know the beautiful human struggling for the light. Before 'the spiritual one'. Before all the clever words. - Jeff Foster I think he got it vice versa. You are a spiritual being firstly. His emotional outburst points to nowhere. Surely, there are the spiritual pretenders and delusionals too, but his rant isn't pointed to them clearly.
|
|
|
Post by Reefs on Sept 16, 2021 13:57:37 GMT -5
WHO ARE YOU WITHOUT YOUR SPIRITUAL STORY? ... I only want to meet YOU. Know your precious heart. Know the beautiful human struggling for the light. Before 'the spiritual one'. Before all the clever words. - Jeff Foster I think he got it vice versa. You are a spiritual being firstly. His emotional outburst points to nowhere. Surely, there are the spiritual pretenders and delusionals too, but his rant isn't pointed to them clearly. No. What comes first is without attributes.
|
|
|
Post by inavalan on Sept 16, 2021 14:40:05 GMT -5
I think he got it vice versa. You are a spiritual being firstly. His emotional outburst points to nowhere. Surely, there are the spiritual pretenders and delusionals too, but his rant isn't pointed to them clearly. No. What comes first is without attributes. He talks about attributes: emotions, niceties, ... Anyway, I think you're saying that before, or behind a something there is a nothing (something without attributes, which in my opinion means nothing; if it has an awareness then it is something). So, I don't think so. I think there is an eternal "something", and there is no "nothing" Everything is consciousness. There isn't such a thing as "no-consciousness". Consciousness isn't a state, but a "material". Like about this world. There is no "nothing before it": from the first moment it was "something". Like you can't say that there was nothing before a certain thought popped-up. There is consciousness that is influenced / "shaped" by thoughts, that change.
|
|
|
Post by runstill on Sept 16, 2021 20:02:40 GMT -5
You don't exist in your yesterday's and you don't exist in your tomorrow's you only exist in this moment and that already has passed.
|
|
|
Post by inavalan on Sept 16, 2021 20:33:10 GMT -5
You don't exist in your yesterday's and you don't exist in your tomorrow's you only exist in this moment and that already has passed. Would you explain what you mean by that, and what does that imply for you?
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Sept 16, 2021 20:45:51 GMT -5
You don't exist in your yesterday's and you don't exist in your tomorrow's you only exist in this moment and that already has passed. Would you explain what you mean by that, and what does that imply for you? Unable to exist, Wally had an accident and returned to Now.
|
|
|
Post by stardustpilgrim on Sept 16, 2021 21:42:35 GMT -5
Would you explain what you mean by that, and what does that imply for you? Unable to exist, Wally had an accident and returned to Now. sdp likes twice.
|
|
|
Post by stardustpilgrim on Sept 16, 2021 21:55:53 GMT -5
You don't exist in your yesterday's and you don't exist in your tomorrow's you only exist in this moment and that already has passed. Would you explain what you mean by that, and what does that imply for you? Only now really functionally exists. I don't go so far as to say there is no past or no future. Say you are moving down a road to take a right at the next crossroads. You can't turn until you get to the crossroads. You can't turn until it's now at the crossroads. On the way you can think about turning, after you have turned you can remember turning, but you can't turn until you are actually at the crossroads. That's what I mean by the functionality of now. I subscribe to Buddha's two truths, there is relative truth, functioning in the world. But there is the absolute truth. Most people here (the ND bunch) deny relative truth, the functionality of relative truth. They say the only truth is Wholeness "operating", being, doing, manifesting. For me this is an error. I have given as analogy an hourglass. The narrow opening that lets only a little sand through is the person, the Whole acts through a mind-body. zd says no, it's only ever the Whole which acts. The two truths is a better map of how the universe works (IMO).
|
|
|
Post by inavalan on Sept 17, 2021 0:51:28 GMT -5
Would you explain what you mean by that, and what does that imply for you? Only now really functionally exists. I don't go so far as to say there is no past or no future. Say you are moving down a road to take a right at the next crossroads. You can't turn until you get to the crossroads. You can't turn until it's now at the crossroads. On the way you can think about turning, after you have turned you can remember turning, but you can't turn until you are actually at the crossroads. That's what I mean by the functionality of now. I subscribe to Buddha's two truths, there is relative truth, functioning in the world. But there is the absolute truth. Most people here (the ND bunch) deny relative truth, the functionality of relative truth. They say the only truth is Wholeness "operating", being, doing, manifesting. For me this is an error. I have given as analogy an hourglass. The narrow opening that lets only a little sand through is the person, the Whole acts through a mind-body. zd says no, it's only ever the Whole which acts. The two truths is a better map of how the universe works (IMO). We've talked about this before. This is a search link for " sandbox": link
|
|
|
Post by Reefs on Sept 17, 2021 3:58:56 GMT -5
No. What comes first is without attributes. He talks about attributes: emotions, niceties, ... Anyway, I think you're saying that before, or behind a something there is a nothing (something without attributes, which in my opinion means nothing; if it has an awareness then it is something). So, I don't think so. I think there is an eternal "something", and there is no "nothing" Everything is consciousness. There isn't such a thing as "no-consciousness". Consciousness isn't a state, but a "material". Like about this world. There is no "nothing before it": from the first moment it was "something". Like you can't say that there was nothing before a certain thought popped-up. There is consciousness that is influenced / "shaped" by thoughts, that change. No. Consciousness is not a thing or a material. That's just how the intellect conceptualizes it. So by definition, the intellect can never understand consciousness. And when we talk about nothingness, we don't mean nothing in the dictionary sense, we mean no-thingness. So you need to understand what thingness means first, you need to realize what a thing is. And in order to understand thingness, you need to understand what objectification means. Then you will understand what no-thingness is pointing to, i.e. that which cannot be objectified (or thingy-fied). And since the intellect and language can't do anything but objectify, it therefore follows that by means of language and intellect, no-thingness can never be grasped. So give it up already!
|
|
|
Post by laughter on Sept 17, 2021 4:31:53 GMT -5
Would you explain what you mean by that, and what does that imply for you? Only now really functionally exists. I don't go so far as to say there is no past or no future. Say you are moving down a road to take a right at the next crossroads. You can't turn until you get to the crossroads. You can't turn until it's now at the crossroads. On the way you can think about turning, after you have turned you can remember turning, but you can't turn until you are actually at the crossroads. That's what I mean by the functionality of now. I subscribe to Buddha's two truths, there is relative truth, functioning in the world. But there is the absolute truth. Most people here (the ND bunch) deny relative truth, the functionality of relative truth. They say the only truth is Wholeness "operating", being, doing, manifesting. For me this is an error. I have given as analogy an hourglass. The narrow opening that lets only a little sand through is the person, the Whole acts through a mind-body. zd says no, it's only ever the Whole which acts. The two truths is a better map of how the universe works (IMO). This is a relative, functional understanding of "now", based on the relationship of time to space. It is as insightful as it is also simple common sense, and has some elegant and fascinating mathematical expression, and counterintuitive physical fact, as well. But, it's one of Plato's shadows. Now - as in the here and now that some folks point to - is transcendent of time. It is non-relative, and can only be pointed to. The moment is eternal, as it takes the entirety of eternity and all of creation to conspire to even the most subtle, fleeting and seemingly inconsequential sensation.
|
|
|
Post by laughter on Sept 17, 2021 4:47:33 GMT -5
He talks about attributes: emotions, niceties, ... Anyway, I think you're saying that before, or behind a something there is a nothing (something without attributes, which in my opinion means nothing; if it has an awareness then it is something). So, I don't think so. I think there is an eternal "something", and there is no "nothing" Everything is consciousness. There isn't such a thing as "no-consciousness". Consciousness isn't a state, but a "material". Like about this world. There is no "nothing before it": from the first moment it was "something". Like you can't say that there was nothing before a certain thought popped-up. There is consciousness that is influenced / "shaped" by thoughts, that change. No. Consciousness is not a thing or a material. That's just how the intellect conceptualizes it. So by definition, the intellect can never understand consciousness. And when we talk about nothingness, we don't mean nothing in the dictionary sense, we mean no-thingness. So you need to understand what thingness means first, you need to realize what a thing is. And in order to understand thingness, you need to understand what objectification means. Then you will understand what no-thingness is pointing to, i.e. that which cannot be objectified (or thingy-fied). And since the intellect and language can't do anything but objectify, it therefore follows that by means of language and intellect, no-thingness can never be grasped. So give it up already! Right, and I'd comment from the peanut gallery that "emptiness" is an even betterer word than no-thingness, as it avoids the direct opposition which implies to the thinker that no-thingness is the antonym of existence. But there is utility in thinking of consciousness in utilitarian terms - just like Spira did here, for instance. It's a concession to mind, and as I know you know, that's why Niz would sometimes differentiate between "Consciousness" and "Awareness" - as did Spira, but all to fleeting and perfunctory to my ear.
|
|
|
Post by stardustpilgrim on Sept 17, 2021 7:08:11 GMT -5
Only now really functionally exists. I don't go so far as to say there is no past or no future. Say you are moving down a road to take a right at the next crossroads. You can't turn until you get to the crossroads. You can't turn until it's now at the crossroads. On the way you can think about turning, after you have turned you can remember turning, but you can't turn until you are actually at the crossroads. That's what I mean by the functionality of now. I subscribe to Buddha's two truths, there is relative truth, functioning in the world. But there is the absolute truth. Most people here (the ND bunch) deny relative truth, the functionality of relative truth. They say the only truth is Wholeness "operating", being, doing, manifesting. For me this is an error. I have given as analogy an hourglass. The narrow opening that lets only a little sand through is the person, the Whole acts through a mind-body. zd says no, it's only ever the Whole which acts. The two truths is a better map of how the universe works (IMO). This is a relative, functional understanding of "now", based on the relationship of time to space. It is as insightful as it is also simple common sense, and has some elegant and fascinating mathematical expression, and counterintuitive physical fact, as well. But, it's one of Plato's shadows. Now - as in the here and now that some folks point to - is transcendent of time. It is non-relative, and can only be pointed to. The moment is eternal, as it takes the entirety of eternity and all of creation to conspire to even the most subtle, fleeting and seemingly inconsequential sensation. Yes, agree, last paragraph. To simplify, All That Is, is a cross, the vertical and the horizontal, simultaneously. The horizontal is a movement in time, most humans know only-time. But eternity is always vertically infinite to each passing moment of time. Our Now is where the vertical and horizontal meet.
|
|