|
Post by ouroboros on Dec 11, 2021 7:27:12 GMT -5
Jeff's certainly an interesting character. From what little I've seen an read it looks to me like he started off as neo, but sometime around the brown bear cartoon began to realise it was awry. What I'm interpreting there is the friction that comes from someone trying to navigate their way out of that particular cul-de-sac, and get back 'on track'. His illness could well be envisaged as a LOA type physical manifestation of that process as well. I would say he's back working his way through an avalanche of boulders and therefore potentially moving into a more auspicious position for the next rebirth. But I agree with Andrew, seems pretty authentic to me. That latest rant has a flavour of 'anti-happy face stickering', that's all.
|
|
|
Post by laughter on Dec 11, 2021 10:33:17 GMT -5
This quote doesn't recommend him. He seems to be out there to make a buck, no matter if he misleads / confuses others. There are people who like to hear words like his. He doesn't know, but he focuses on wrong things in wrong ways with counterproductive emotions. He won't get what he hopes he will. Jeff usually writes sensitive and insightful stuff, a lot of it poetry. But this is McKenna stuff, the exact opposite. More like venting. I am assuming this must feel somehow freeing to him, maybe he felt being a teacher to be a burden, having to live up to certain standards and expectations, based on a false image and self-image, and he's finally done with it. In that sense, good for Jeff! But again, this is awakening/pre-SR stuff. This shouldn't even be a topic anymore given his spiritual resume. And yet it is! So on the one hand, it's somewhat disappointing, but seeing someone finding their own path and becoming truer to their true self, is also always exciting to watch. Oh, but passionately bittersweet is definitely a spiritually poetic form.
|
|
|
Post by Reefs on Dec 11, 2021 14:27:31 GMT -5
Jeff usually writes sensitive and insightful stuff, a lot of it poetry. But this is McKenna stuff, the exact opposite. More like venting. I am assuming this must feel somehow freeing to him, maybe he felt being a teacher to be a burden, having to live up to certain standards and expectations, based on a false image and self-image, and he's finally done with it. In that sense, good for Jeff! But again, this is awakening/pre-SR stuff. This shouldn't even be a topic anymore given his spiritual resume. And yet it is! So on the one hand, it's somewhat disappointing, but seeing someone finding their own path and becoming truer to their true self, is also always exciting to watch. Oh, but passionately bittersweet is definitely a spiritually poetic form. Sure. A lot of great poets apparently were tortured souls in some way. I was just browsing a bit thru Jeff's first book, and I noticed that he referred to his body as "this bag of flesh and bone"... and how he says that there is no Jeff, Jeff does not exist, just a reference point, a story, blah blah blah...There's actually a picture of an atomic bomb mushroom cloud in the book with the caption "Liberation is..." It's interesting when I compare what Jeff writes to what Suzanne wrote. It does sound very similar, both speak fluently non-dualese, but in Jeff's case, there's the 'seeing the world thru the eyes of Source' aspect missing which gives his book an entirely theoretical touch as opposed to Suzanne's book who clearly describes that perspective and also the mechanics of that process in great detail. Jeff seems to get lost in empty generalities. Just my first impression after a few pages. But there's something amiss that I can't quite put into words right now.
|
|
|
Post by laughter on Dec 11, 2021 14:44:24 GMT -5
Oh, but passionately bittersweet is definitely a spiritually poetic form. Sure. A lot of great poets apparently were tortured souls in some way. I was just browsing a bit thru Jeff's first book, and I noticed that he referred to his body as "this bag of flesh and bone"... and how he says that there is no Jeff, Jeff does not exist, just a reference point, a story, blah blah blah...There's actually a picture of an atomic bomb mushroom cloud in the book with the caption "Liberation is..." It's interesting when I compare what Jeff writes to what Suzanne wrote. It does sound very similar, both speak fluently non-dualese, but in Jeff's case, there's the 'seeing the world thru the eyes of Source' aspect missing which gives his book an entirely theoretical touch as opposed to Suzanne's book who clearly describes that perspective and also the mechanics of that process in great detail. Jeff seems to get lost in empty generalities. Just my first impression after a few pages. But there's something amiss that I can't quite put into words right now. Thanks for your impressions, I don't have the inclination to do a deep Jeff dive. I do recall reading something casually where he describes pondering the mushroom cloud in the context of his realization/experience, along the lines of how it had to be accepted or was directly seen as source or something similar to that - but of course, I'm putting words into his mouth, so don't mind those. Letting go of hard good/evil is a major source of the bittersweetness to be found at the cusp that is the existential context mix. Reminds me of some recent dialogs I've had with Sue on the notion that "all good things come from God".
|
|
|
Post by Reefs on Dec 11, 2021 22:29:26 GMT -5
Sure. A lot of great poets apparently were tortured souls in some way. I was just browsing a bit thru Jeff's first book, and I noticed that he referred to his body as "this bag of flesh and bone"... and how he says that there is no Jeff, Jeff does not exist, just a reference point, a story, blah blah blah...There's actually a picture of an atomic bomb mushroom cloud in the book with the caption "Liberation is..." It's interesting when I compare what Jeff writes to what Suzanne wrote. It does sound very similar, both speak fluently non-dualese, but in Jeff's case, there's the 'seeing the world thru the eyes of Source' aspect missing which gives his book an entirely theoretical touch as opposed to Suzanne's book who clearly describes that perspective and also the mechanics of that process in great detail. Jeff seems to get lost in empty generalities. Just my first impression after a few pages. But there's something amiss that I can't quite put into words right now. Thanks for your impressions, I don't have the inclination to do a deep Jeff dive. I do recall reading something casually where he describes pondering the mushroom cloud in the context of his realization/experience, along the lines of how it had to be accepted or was directly seen as source or something similar to that - but of course, I'm putting words into his mouth, so don't mind those. Letting go of hard good/evil is a major source of the bittersweetness to be found at the cusp that is the existential context mix. Reminds me of some recent dialogs I've had with Sue on the notion that "all good things come from God". I just read the introduction of the his book again and I think I know what's amiss with Jeff's presentation. On the surface level, his non-dualese grammar and syntax are impeccable. However, when he gets to the inevitable "There is only THIS" and he tries to go a bit deeper, he can't come up with anything else than present thoughts and present (physical) sensory input... but no mention of suchness, and that's probably what makes his presentation lacking depth. Compare that to Adya, whose presentation is usually all about suchness and nothing else. And based on what I've read from others in the phony advaita camp, I just realized, this may actrually be the one theme that applies to all the (phony) neos, they understand the person dealio perfectly but they don't understand suchness. And if you don't understand suchness, you also don't understand thingness. And without understanding thingness, seeing thru personhood is incomplete. And so with a genuine realization, seeing thru the person and thingness go actually hand in hand, and when thingness has been seen thru, suchness is what is seen to remain. But if it is just a half-baked realization, i.e. only seeing thru the mechanics of personhood but not thingness itself, then it's very likely that we have a situation where people see thru ego from the perspective of spiritual ego. Meaning, essentially it is still all the ego perspective, just on a more advanced, highly abstract level, which gives the impression that ego has been transcended. And that would be correct in the sense that the ordinary ego has been transcended. But mind hasn't been transcended, and so there's no fundamental difference, which usually shows in these weird slip ups you see here and there with these people. And that's how you get to a position where you call your body a bag of skin and bone and a mushroom cloud liberation... Butt... just first impressions. I could be wrong about Jeff after all. We'll see. I'll report back after I've finished the book and will correct the record in case I was wrong about Jeff.
|
|
|
Post by laughter on Dec 12, 2021 4:13:32 GMT -5
Thanks for your impressions, I don't have the inclination to do a deep Jeff dive. I do recall reading something casually where he describes pondering the mushroom cloud in the context of his realization/experience, along the lines of how it had to be accepted or was directly seen as source or something similar to that - but of course, I'm putting words into his mouth, so don't mind those. Letting go of hard good/evil is a major source of the bittersweetness to be found at the cusp that is the existential context mix. Reminds me of some recent dialogs I've had with Sue on the notion that "all good things come from God". I just read the introduction of the his book again and I think I know what's amiss with Jeff's presentation. On the surface level, his non-dualese grammar and syntax are impeccable. However, when he gets to the inevitable "There is only THIS" and he tries to go a bit deeper, he can't come up with anything else than present thoughts and present (physical) sensory input... but no mention of suchness, and that's probably what makes his presentation lacking depth. Compare that to Adya, whose presentation is usually all about suchness and nothing else. And based on what I've read from others in the phony advaita camp, I just realized, this may actrually be the one theme that applies to all the (phony) neos, they understand the person dealio perfectly but they don't understand suchness. And if you don't understand suchness, you also don't understand thingness. And without understanding thingness, seeing thru personhood is incomplete. And so with a genuine realization, seeing thru the person and thingness go actually hand in hand, and when thingness has been seen thru, suchness is what is seen to remain. But if it is just a half-baked realization, i.e. only seeing thru the mechanics of personhood but not thingness itself, then it's very likely that we have a situation where people see thru ego from the perspective of spiritual ego. Meaning, essentially it is still all the ego perspective, just on a more advanced, highly abstract level, which gives the impression that ego has been transcended. And that would be correct in the sense that the ordinary ego has been transcended. But mind hasn't been transcended, and so there's no fundamental difference, which usually shows in these weird slip ups you see here and there with these people. And that's how you get to a position where you call your body a bag of skin and bone and a mushroom cloud liberation... Butt... just first impressions. I could be wrong about Jeff after all. We'll see. I'll report back after I've finished the book and will correct the record in case I was wrong about Jeff. There are fleeting lines of poetry that seem to me to evoke what you mean by suchness, like this one: To see a World in a Grain of Sand And a Heaven in a Wild Flower Hold Infinity in the palm of your hand And Eternity in an hourThat's the first four lines of Auguries of Innocence, by William Blake. It's a very long poem, wrapped around a humanist theme with oblique references to the Christian God. Reading it is like hearing a raspy, static filled broadcast from the other side of the looking glass. Many pearls of wisdom, modulated by that bittersweet, edgy overtone.
I can see how this all relates to your interest in the kensho/sr dichotomy.
What I've read of Adya, he manages to touch the core of human emotion. He often expresses a sort of stymied dismay at his reaching it, - albeit muted and hopeful. A sort of reflection of the Cassandra myth. It's possible to perceive beauty in a stark intensity, while still maintaining clarity as to the poignancy of human suffering.
As to Jeff and his ego and realizations .. I see what you're getting at. But, of course, every public case, is unique.
|
|
|
Post by zendancer on Dec 12, 2021 8:46:59 GMT -5
Thanks for your impressions, I don't have the inclination to do a deep Jeff dive. I do recall reading something casually where he describes pondering the mushroom cloud in the context of his realization/experience, along the lines of how it had to be accepted or was directly seen as source or something similar to that - but of course, I'm putting words into his mouth, so don't mind those. Letting go of hard good/evil is a major source of the bittersweetness to be found at the cusp that is the existential context mix. Reminds me of some recent dialogs I've had with Sue on the notion that "all good things come from God". I just read the introduction of the his book again and I think I know what's amiss with Jeff's presentation. On the surface level, his non-dualese grammar and syntax are impeccable. However, when he gets to the inevitable "There is only THIS" and he tries to go a bit deeper, he can't come up with anything else than present thoughts and present (physical) sensory input... but no mention of suchness, and that's probably what makes his presentation lacking depth. Compare that to Adya, whose presentation is usually all about suchness and nothing else. And based on what I've read from others in the phony advaita camp, I just realized, this may actrually be the one theme that applies to all the (phony) neos, they understand the person dealio perfectly but they don't understand suchness. And if you don't understand suchness, you also don't understand thingness. And without understanding thingness, seeing thru personhood is incomplete. And so with a genuine realization, seeing thru the person and thingness go actually hand in hand, and when thingness has been seen thru, suchness is what is seen to remain. But if it is just a half-baked realization, i.e. only seeing thru the mechanics of personhood but not thingness itself, then it's very likely that we have a situation where people see thru ego from the perspective of spiritual ego. Meaning, essentially it is still all the ego perspective, just on a more advanced, highly abstract level, which gives the impression that ego has been transcended. And that would be correct in the sense that the ordinary ego has been transcended. But mind hasn't been transcended, and so there's no fundamental difference, which usually shows in these weird slip ups you see here and there with these people. And that's how you get to a position where you call your body a bag of skin and bone and a mushroom cloud liberation... Butt... just first impressions. I could be wrong about Jeff after all. We'll see. I'll report back after I've finished the book and will correct the record in case I was wrong about Jeff. I suspect that you've hit the nail on the head in this speculation, and that would explain the ruthless truth people's outlook as well as many of the Neo's. By contrast, in the Zen tradition an initial kensho (seeing into one's true nature) often includes "passing through the gateless gate," and the primary effect of that event is seeing through the illusion of thingness. Immediately after a first kensho in 1984 I looked at a tree beside the road and suddenly realized the difference between what I had always imagined as a tree and what a tree actually IS. From that point on I often used the word "suchness" and knew exactly what it meant. It is also the reason that I came home that day and said to my wife, in essence, "reality, itself, is alive." This character saw through the illusion of thingness 15 years before seeing through the illusion of selfhood. In the case of the RT people and many Neos they probably see through the illusion of selfhood, but don't see through the illusion of thingness. Sooner or later, the ones who are honest with themselves finally have to admit that something fundamental is amiss. I remember reading the first stuff that Jeff wrote after he saw that his understanding lacked something, and it seemed obvious that he was attempting to hold onto his audience, despite his lack of clarity, by using his honesty as an alternative beacon of light. Your insight might also apply to some of the other people we know in the ND world , as well as people who have not seen through either of those two fundamental illusions. I think I mentioned this before, but I know an intellectually-brilliant man who is claimed to be enlightened by many people. It is telling that he has never refuted that claim. His primary existential koan was, "Who am I?" He practiced mindfulness and went on retreats, and talked to many gurus for several years. After a particular retreat, he had a realization that his entire search for truth was a mind game, and that IDEA (which he considered a realization) ended his search for truth. Afterwards he began to give satsangs. After one such satsang, a member of the audience who had listened carefully to his story, said, "Your primary question was 'Who am I?', so how would you answer that question now?" The fellow shrugged his shoulders to indicate that he had no idea who he was, but that the question no longer mattered to him because (1) it was just part of the mind game involved in seeking, and (2) he had lost interest in that game. Later, I was alone with this fellow, and I said, "What would you think about someone who, if asked who s/he is, answered, 'I am THIS?' He responded by saying, "I would think that such a person doesn't know what s/he is talking about." That ended our conversation because it was then obvious to me that he hasn't yet realized what the word "THIS" is pointing to.
|
|
|
Post by Reefs on Dec 12, 2021 10:38:54 GMT -5
I just read the introduction of the his book again and I think I know what's amiss with Jeff's presentation. On the surface level, his non-dualese grammar and syntax are impeccable. However, when he gets to the inevitable "There is only THIS" and he tries to go a bit deeper, he can't come up with anything else than present thoughts and present (physical) sensory input... but no mention of suchness, and that's probably what makes his presentation lacking depth. Compare that to Adya, whose presentation is usually all about suchness and nothing else. And based on what I've read from others in the phony advaita camp, I just realized, this may actrually be the one theme that applies to all the (phony) neos, they understand the person dealio perfectly but they don't understand suchness. And if you don't understand suchness, you also don't understand thingness. And without understanding thingness, seeing thru personhood is incomplete. And so with a genuine realization, seeing thru the person and thingness go actually hand in hand, and when thingness has been seen thru, suchness is what is seen to remain. But if it is just a half-baked realization, i.e. only seeing thru the mechanics of personhood but not thingness itself, then it's very likely that we have a situation where people see thru ego from the perspective of spiritual ego. Meaning, essentially it is still all the ego perspective, just on a more advanced, highly abstract level, which gives the impression that ego has been transcended. And that would be correct in the sense that the ordinary ego has been transcended. But mind hasn't been transcended, and so there's no fundamental difference, which usually shows in these weird slip ups you see here and there with these people. And that's how you get to a position where you call your body a bag of skin and bone and a mushroom cloud liberation... Butt... just first impressions. I could be wrong about Jeff after all. We'll see. I'll report back after I've finished the book and will correct the record in case I was wrong about Jeff. There are fleeting lines of poetry that seem to me to evoke what you mean by suchness, like this one: To see a World in a Grain of Sand And a Heaven in a Wild Flower Hold Infinity in the palm of your hand And Eternity in an hourThat's the first four lines of Auguries of Innocence, by William Blake. It's a very long poem, wrapped around a humanist theme with oblique references to the Christian God. Reading it is like hearing a raspy, static filled broadcast from the other side of the looking glass. Many pearls of wisdom, modulated by that bittersweet, edgy overtone. I can see how this all relates to your interest in the kensho/sr dichotomy.
What I've read of Adya, he manages to touch the core of human emotion. He often expresses a sort of stymied dismay at his reaching it, - albeit muted and hopeful. A sort of reflection of the Cassandra myth. It's possible to perceive beauty in a stark intensity, while still maintaining clarity as to the poignancy of human suffering.
As to Jeff and his ego and realizations .. I see what you're getting at. But, of course, every public case, is unique. Yes, you can find hints of it in the poetry of the transcendentalists. But the best source I know for this kind of poetry is probably Rumi. I am 2/3 thru Jeff's first book, and still no trace of suchness to be found. So I'll stand by what I've said earlier. Just compare these two quotes - one from Jeff, one from Adya: Exhibit AExhibit B:Notice how Jeff is all about dream/play, stories/narratives and appearances and how Adya doesn't even use these words!
|
|
|
Post by zendancer on Dec 12, 2021 11:40:08 GMT -5
There are fleeting lines of poetry that seem to me to evoke what you mean by suchness, like this one: To see a World in a Grain of Sand And a Heaven in a Wild Flower Hold Infinity in the palm of your hand And Eternity in an hourThat's the first four lines of Auguries of Innocence, by William Blake. It's a very long poem, wrapped around a humanist theme with oblique references to the Christian God. Reading it is like hearing a raspy, static filled broadcast from the other side of the looking glass. Many pearls of wisdom, modulated by that bittersweet, edgy overtone. I can see how this all relates to your interest in the kensho/sr dichotomy.
What I've read of Adya, he manages to touch the core of human emotion. He often expresses a sort of stymied dismay at his reaching it, - albeit muted and hopeful. A sort of reflection of the Cassandra myth. It's possible to perceive beauty in a stark intensity, while still maintaining clarity as to the poignancy of human suffering.
As to Jeff and his ego and realizations .. I see what you're getting at. But, of course, every public case, is unique. Yes, you can find hints of it in the poetry of the transcendentalists. But the best source I know for this kind of poetry is probably Rumi. I am 2/3 thru Jeff's first book, and still no trace of suchness to be found. So I'll stand by what I've said earlier. Just compare these two quotes - one from Jeff, one from Adya: Exhibit AExhibit B:Notice how Jeff is all about dream/play, stories/narratives and appearances and how Adya doesn't even use these words! Exactly, and for good reason.
|
|
|
Post by laughter on Dec 12, 2021 13:16:16 GMT -5
There are fleeting lines of poetry that seem to me to evoke what you mean by suchness, like this one: To see a World in a Grain of Sand And a Heaven in a Wild Flower Hold Infinity in the palm of your hand And Eternity in an hourThat's the first four lines of Auguries of Innocence, by William Blake. It's a very long poem, wrapped around a humanist theme with oblique references to the Christian God. Reading it is like hearing a raspy, static filled broadcast from the other side of the looking glass. Many pearls of wisdom, modulated by that bittersweet, edgy overtone. I can see how this all relates to your interest in the kensho/sr dichotomy.
What I've read of Adya, he manages to touch the core of human emotion. He often expresses a sort of stymied dismay at his reaching it, - albeit muted and hopeful. A sort of reflection of the Cassandra myth. It's possible to perceive beauty in a stark intensity, while still maintaining clarity as to the poignancy of human suffering.
As to Jeff and his ego and realizations .. I see what you're getting at. But, of course, every public case, is unique. Yes, you can find hints of it in the poetry of the transcendentalists. But the best source I know for this kind of poetry is probably Rumi. I am 2/3 thru Jeff's first book, and still no trace of suchness to be found. So I'll stand by what I've said earlier. Just compare these two quotes - one from Jeff, one from Adya: Exhibit AExhibit B:Notice how Jeff is all about dream/play, stories/narratives and appearances and how Adya doesn't even use these words! Sure, seems to me unlikely that a Zen guy would use the dream/dreamer metaphor. I had objections to that metaphor when I first started posting here. This despite that my questioning of material realism was a major path component. It took E' explaining that analogizing perception to a dream wasn't to dismiss "the dream" as inconsequential to put that to rest. This is what Jeff did in that paragraph - dismiss the dream, as just a dream. Niz once replied that this just results in a worser dream. The tantric aspect of the Zen approach, the returning to the sensory here and now (which is a phrase that's far too heavy with concepts, so I doubt it finds much use in Zen), that's in the 180 degree opposite direction of the psychedelic approach of questioning material realism. But, that's the way the existential truth rolls: devotion and insight, for another example, are also 180 degrees in opposition. But both roads lead in the same direction, away from the false. The analytic mind lands on confusion in the comparison. A bird chirping, the sound of a snowflake, or a pebble hitting a wall, each involve the same poetic, catalytic sensory twist. The descriptions of penetrating the illusion of thingness often involve the metaphor of dissolution. These can be either gentle, or jarring, and in the case of either illusion - personhood or thingness - the resulting informing of mind will vary between individuals. Tolle's story, for instance, is of an explosive realization, rather than the subtle event Adya describes. The way I'd fit Tolle into kensho/sr is that he suddenly penetrated the illusion of personhood which led him into a very long and deep kensho, which eventually transitioned into an even longer period of informing of mind. It's notable that I don't recall Tolle ever writing about any illusion other than the falsity of ego, and even in that, he doesn't use the idea of illusion. Even the notion of illusion, itself, can confound even the best analysts. Blake, for example, had a boyhood experience of a sort of psychedelic vision: The filtered light through a leafy canopy, likely in the motion of a breeze. It enlightened young Billy as to an alternative perspective on the real. ZD, he describes a person and a room dissolving on the ringing of a telephone. It is this shattering of the apparently coherent and solid material realism to which the dream/dreamers mean to point. It is ideas about realism that form the basis of the analysts dream.
|
|
|
Post by andrew on Dec 12, 2021 16:02:18 GMT -5
There are fleeting lines of poetry that seem to me to evoke what you mean by suchness, like this one: To see a World in a Grain of Sand And a Heaven in a Wild Flower Hold Infinity in the palm of your hand And Eternity in an hourThat's the first four lines of Auguries of Innocence, by William Blake. It's a very long poem, wrapped around a humanist theme with oblique references to the Christian God. Reading it is like hearing a raspy, static filled broadcast from the other side of the looking glass. Many pearls of wisdom, modulated by that bittersweet, edgy overtone. I can see how this all relates to your interest in the kensho/sr dichotomy.
What I've read of Adya, he manages to touch the core of human emotion. He often expresses a sort of stymied dismay at his reaching it, - albeit muted and hopeful. A sort of reflection of the Cassandra myth. It's possible to perceive beauty in a stark intensity, while still maintaining clarity as to the poignancy of human suffering.
As to Jeff and his ego and realizations .. I see what you're getting at. But, of course, every public case, is unique. Yes, you can find hints of it in the poetry of the transcendentalists. But the best source I know for this kind of poetry is probably Rumi. I am 2/3 thru Jeff's first book, and still no trace of suchness to be found. So I'll stand by what I've said earlier. Just compare these two quotes - one from Jeff, one from Adya: Exhibit AExhibit B:Notice how Jeff is all about dream/play, stories/narratives and appearances and how Adya doesn't even use these words! I found Jeff's words perfectly fine (neo) advaita there, in fact I liked it. He's a good communicator, good with words....and he did make a reference to 'this, now and forever' at the end. But what did strike me is how blithely he talked about suffering. ''Suffering is fine'' lol. Well.....I guess he has found out in recent times that 'suffering' really isn't that fine. I think that's central to his journey in recent times. I think he's been exploring depth. Neo-advaita is all well and good until the sh/t hits the fan, and when it does, it then reveals itself for the superficiality that it is. And I think Jeff has tried to convey that in recent months. I slightly question whether he should even be selling those early books at this point. They seem so unrepresentative of who he is now, I imagine they make him cringe a bit. I don't know, I'm not judging him I don't think, I just find it a little curious.
|
|
|
Post by Reefs on Dec 13, 2021 1:13:04 GMT -5
As to Jeff and his ego and realizations .. I see what you're getting at. But, of course, every public case, is unique. I think that's just making the situation worse, being somewhat a public figure, a 'person' in the public eye.
|
|
|
Post by Reefs on Dec 13, 2021 1:30:30 GMT -5
Yes, you can find hints of it in the poetry of the transcendentalists. But the best source I know for this kind of poetry is probably Rumi. I am 2/3 thru Jeff's first book, and still no trace of suchness to be found. So I'll stand by what I've said earlier. Just compare these two quotes - one from Jeff, one from Adya: Exhibit AExhibit B:Notice how Jeff is all about dream/play, stories/narratives and appearances and how Adya doesn't even use these words! I found Jeff's words perfectly fine (neo) advaita there, in fact I liked it. He's a good communicator, good with words....and he did make a reference to 'this, now and forever' at the end. But what did strike me is how blithely he talked about suffering. ''Suffering is fine'' lol. Well.....I guess he has found out in recent times that 'suffering' really isn't that fine. I think that's central to his journey in recent times. I think he's been exploring depth. Neo-advaita is all well and good until the sh/t hits the fan, and when it does, it then reveals itself for the superficiality that it is. And I think Jeff has tried to convey that in recent months. I slightly question whether he should even be selling those early books at this point. They seem so unrepresentative of who he is now, I imagine they make him cringe a bit. I don't know, I'm not judging him I don't think, I just find it a little curious. Yes, the words would be fine. But just putting the right words together and in the right order doesn't mean anything in terms of actual understanding. As Jeff likes to say "it's just words" - and we here sometimes say that too, because we use words as pointers, and the words we use are backed up by an actual realization. But in Jeff's case, it really just seems to be words, and no actual realization behind it. That's why he can be so flippant about mushroom clouds and human suffering in general. And you are right again, Life without a Center is from 2006, I think. I looked up his entry on wikipedia and there it says he went thru another transformation in 2011, so that book my not accurately represent his perspective anymore: However, his recent blog/facebook entry speaks for itself. So in that sense, Jeff is probably just proving Inavalan's point that non-dualism is some special kind of self-deluision.
|
|
|
Post by Reefs on Dec 13, 2021 1:45:39 GMT -5
Yes, you can find hints of it in the poetry of the transcendentalists. But the best source I know for this kind of poetry is probably Rumi. I am 2/3 thru Jeff's first book, and still no trace of suchness to be found. So I'll stand by what I've said earlier. Just compare these two quotes - one from Jeff, one from Adya: Exhibit AExhibit B:Notice how Jeff is all about dream/play, stories/narratives and appearances and how Adya doesn't even use these words! Exactly, and for good reason. Yeah, if you take away the words 'dream', 'story', 'appearance' from the neo's vocabulary, he suddenly can't talk! But Adya can. Even though he is using these words too, but he obviously doesn't rely on them. The neo though seems to rely on them. Big difference.
|
|
|
Post by Reefs on Dec 13, 2021 2:30:36 GMT -5
I just read the introduction of the his book again and I think I know what's amiss with Jeff's presentation. On the surface level, his non-dualese grammar and syntax are impeccable. However, when he gets to the inevitable "There is only THIS" and he tries to go a bit deeper, he can't come up with anything else than present thoughts and present (physical) sensory input... but no mention of suchness, and that's probably what makes his presentation lacking depth. Compare that to Adya, whose presentation is usually all about suchness and nothing else. And based on what I've read from others in the phony advaita camp, I just realized, this may actrually be the one theme that applies to all the (phony) neos, they understand the person dealio perfectly but they don't understand suchness. And if you don't understand suchness, you also don't understand thingness. And without understanding thingness, seeing thru personhood is incomplete. And so with a genuine realization, seeing thru the person and thingness go actually hand in hand, and when thingness has been seen thru, suchness is what is seen to remain. But if it is just a half-baked realization, i.e. only seeing thru the mechanics of personhood but not thingness itself, then it's very likely that we have a situation where people see thru ego from the perspective of spiritual ego. Meaning, essentially it is still all the ego perspective, just on a more advanced, highly abstract level, which gives the impression that ego has been transcended. And that would be correct in the sense that the ordinary ego has been transcended. But mind hasn't been transcended, and so there's no fundamental difference, which usually shows in these weird slip ups you see here and there with these people. And that's how you get to a position where you call your body a bag of skin and bone and a mushroom cloud liberation... Butt... just first impressions. I could be wrong about Jeff after all. We'll see. I'll report back after I've finished the book and will correct the record in case I was wrong about Jeff. I suspect that you've hit the nail on the head in this speculation, and that would explain the ruthless truth people's outlook as well as many of the Neo's. By contrast, in the Zen tradition an initial kensho (seeing into one's true nature) often includes "passing through the gateless gate," and the primary effect of that event is seeing through the illusion of thingness. Immediately after a first kensho in 1984 I looked at a tree beside the road and suddenly realized the difference between what I had always imagined as a tree and what a tree actually IS. From that point on I often used the word "suchness" and knew exactly what it meant. It is also the reason that I came home that day and said to my wife, in essence, "reality, itself, is alive." This character saw through the illusion of thingness 15 years before seeing through the illusion of selfhood. In the case of the RT people and many Neos they probably see through the illusion of selfhood, but don't see through the illusion of thingness. Sooner or later, the ones who are honest with themselves finally have to admit that something fundamental is amiss. I remember reading the first stuff that Jeff wrote after he saw that his understanding lacked something, and it seemed obvious that he was attempting to hold onto his audience, despite his lack of clarity, by using his honesty as an alternative beacon of light. Your insight might also apply to some of the other people we know in the ND world , as well as people who have not seen through either of those two fundamental illusions. I think I mentioned this before, but I know an intellectually-brilliant man who is claimed to be enlightened by many people. It is telling that he has never refuted that claim. His primary existential koan was, "Who am I?" He practiced mindfulness and went on retreats, and talked to many gurus for several years. After a particular retreat, he had a realization that his entire search for truth was a mind game, and that IDEA (which he considered a realization) ended his search for truth. Afterwards he began to give satsangs. After one such satsang, a member of the audience who had listened carefully to his story, said, "Your primary question was 'Who am I?', so how would you answer that question now?" The fellow shrugged his shoulders to indicate that he had no idea who he was, but that the question no longer mattered to him because (1) it was just part of the mind game involved in seeking, and (2) he had lost interest in that game. Later, I was alone with this fellow, and I said, "What would you think about someone who, if asked who s/he is, answered, 'I am THIS?' He responded by saying, "I would think that such a person doesn't know what s/he is talking about." That ended our conversation because it was then obvious to me that he hasn't yet realized what the word "THIS" is pointing to. Yes, I think this could be the one thing that really distinguishes neo-advaita from traditional advaita. Just differences in teaching style, presentation and making no concessions to the seeker, doesn't seem significant enough. But not distinguishing between thingness and suchness, that's huge. I'll check out some other neos if that's the case with them too. The reason why this became so obvious is because Jeff likes to call back attention to the present moment, saying that this is all there ever is. So far so good. But when he does that, all he ever notices are objects of attention, like a chair, a dripping faucet, a bird tweeting, the noise of his laptop fan, the fingers on his keyboard.. and he calls that "THIS". And he says that "THIS" is all there is. So this is where we differ. What Jeff calls "THIS" is not at all what we call "THIS", because never ever does he direct attention beyond thingness to suchness, i.e. that moment when you look at the bird and the bird is not a bird anymore, or when the looker and the looked at are suddenly one and there is only looking. Jeff never mentions that. So I got the impression that to Jeff, "THIS" just means present moment experience, and objectified experience! Which explains why his descriptions of his present moments are so superficial and lacking any kind of depth, it's basically just labeling whatever is in the field of his awareness without actually realizing/seeing what's behind these labels: So he does assassinate quite a few words by rendering them meaningless, most notably 'liberation' and 'oneness'. And so another boo-boo that stood out in the book is how he talks about oneness. Reminded me of Enigma and how he used to make fun of people who talked about 'the' Oneness doing this or that, instead of 'the' One doing this or that (as Adya did in the quote) - big difference! And to your last paragraph, here's Jeff's take: Conclusion: I think what happened to Jeff is the end of the search, and when he stopped hitting himself with that hammer, he suddenly experienced bliss or deep states of alignment. Because one thing seems certain after reading the book, Jeff does have a clear reference for what I call alignment and he also makes it clear that the end of the search was a major source of relief for him that turned his life around. But like McKenna, he obviously mistook the end of the search for SR. And so even today, 20 years later, he still has to deal with some loose ends coming from this major misconception. Just my 2 cents, of course. Others may disagree.
|
|