|
Post by zendancer on Dec 13, 2021 4:24:20 GMT -5
"What is the self"? - who asks? The answer asks! The assumed answer! But the question must die, the moment it is asked. It is false, built on a lie, a fallacy. It assumes an answer! The question and the search for the answer arise at the same time. Where there is a question, there is the assumption of an answer, and there is a search, a contraction of this. The question kills this. Unless it is seen. Seen!
"What is the self?" Four words and a question mark! That is ALL. No answer. No answer. And so no question, and no search. And it brings you back to THIS, which was here all along, which IS here all along, at this moment. The question IS the moment, in its totality, the moment it is asked. Why do you search for an answer to the question, when the question simply unravels in the moment?
A question is identical with the assumption of an answer. What is the nature of reality? - this assumes a nature of reality. What is the self? - this assumes a self. What is Ultimate Truth? - this assumes Ultimate Truth.
Jeff Foster, Life Without a Centre, 2006
Total nonsense, and it's obvious that he hasn't got a clue. Too bad that he didn't meet a keen-eyed Zen Master. It reminds me of an insight I had at my first Zen retreat that led me to a completely erroneous conclusion. I challenged the teacher with my new understanding and got physically hit with his Zen stick and psychologically knocked on my butt. The same thing happened to Hakuin. Giving up the search is not the same thing as finding the truth.
|
|
|
Post by laughter on Dec 13, 2021 8:56:53 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. Expectations and image. Image can happen effortlessly, after-the-fact, free of expectation, or not. And, of course, there's a subtle mind hook there. Doesn't mean you won't comb your hair, for instance.
|
|
|
Post by Reefs on Dec 13, 2021 11:19:29 GMT -5
Total nonsense, and it's obvious that he hasn't got a clue. Too bad that he didn't meet a keen-eyed Zen Master. It reminds me of an insight I had at my first Zen retreat that led me to a completely erroneous conclusion. I challenged the teacher with my new understanding and got physically hit with his Zen stick and psychologically knocked on my butt. The same thing happened to Hakuin. Giving up the search is not the same thing as finding the truth. "As you would no doubt have anticipated, I could not give a favorable review of Jeff's book 'Life without a centre'. In fact, I was tempted to 'hold it up' as an example of the extreme reductionism of neo-advaita (to the point where there is no teaching left whatsoever). But I don't want to be negative about any teacher directly, only about neo-advaita teaching in general." - Dennis Waite
|
|
|
Post by laughter on Dec 13, 2021 13:37:42 GMT -5
"What is the self"? - who asks? The answer asks! The assumed answer! But the question must die, the moment it is asked. It is false, built on a lie, a fallacy. It assumes an answer! The question and the search for the answer arise at the same time. Where there is a question, there is the assumption of an answer, and there is a search, a contraction of this. The question kills this. Unless it is seen. Seen! "What is the self?" Four words and a question mark! That is ALL. No answer. No answer. And so no question, and no search. And it brings you back to THIS, which was here all along, which IS here all along, at this moment. The question IS the moment, in its totality, the moment it is asked. Why do you search for an answer to the question, when the question simply unravels in the moment? A question is identical with the assumption of an answer. What is the nature of reality? - this assumes a nature of reality. What is the self? - this assumes a self. What is Ultimate Truth? - this assumes Ultimate Truth. Jeff Foster, Life Without a Centre, 2006 Total nonsense, and it's obvious that he hasn't got a clue. Too bad that he didn't meet a keen-eyed Zen Master. It reminds me of an insight I had at my first Zen retreat that led me to a completely erroneous conclusion. I challenged the teacher with my new understanding and got physically hit with his Zen stick and psychologically knocked on my butt. The same thing happened to Hakuin. Giving up the search is not the same thing as finding the truth. Too smart for his own good, he looked at the flag pole and decided not to bother with the climb.
|
|
|
Post by zendancer on Dec 13, 2021 13:40:16 GMT -5
Total nonsense, and it's obvious that he hasn't got a clue. Too bad that he didn't meet a keen-eyed Zen Master. It reminds me of an insight I had at my first Zen retreat that led me to a completely erroneous conclusion. I challenged the teacher with my new understanding and got physically hit with his Zen stick and psychologically knocked on my butt. The same thing happened to Hakuin. Giving up the search is not the same thing as finding the truth. "As you would no doubt have anticipated, I could not give a favorable review of Jeff's book 'Life without a centre'. In fact, I was tempted to 'hold it up' as an example of the extreme reductionism of neo-advaita (to the point where there is no teaching left whatsoever). But I don't want to be negative about any teacher directly, only about neo-advaita teaching in general." - Dennis Waite My sentiments exactly. When I think back over the numerous realizations that resulted in detachments from various erroneous ideas that occurred over a 15 year period for this character, I have to question the validity of many peoples' words who talk the non-dual talk but don't seem to have any real depth of understanding behind them. In my case I was particularly lucky. I was born into a supportive and loving family and never experienced the kinds of negative life events and attitudes that are pointed to with phrases like "dark night of the soul" or "pain body." A lot of people are not that lucky and could probably use some therapy for clearing out psychological baggage while traveling the ND path or even before traveling the ND path.
|
|
|
Post by zendancer on Dec 13, 2021 13:40:38 GMT -5
"What is the self"? - who asks? The answer asks! The assumed answer! But the question must die, the moment it is asked. It is false, built on a lie, a fallacy. It assumes an answer! The question and the search for the answer arise at the same time. Where there is a question, there is the assumption of an answer, and there is a search, a contraction of this. The question kills this. Unless it is seen. Seen! "What is the self?" Four words and a question mark! That is ALL. No answer. No answer. And so no question, and no search. And it brings you back to THIS, which was here all along, which IS here all along, at this moment. The question IS the moment, in its totality, the moment it is asked. Why do you search for an answer to the question, when the question simply unravels in the moment? A question is identical with the assumption of an answer. What is the nature of reality? - this assumes a nature of reality. What is the self? - this assumes a self. What is Ultimate Truth? - this assumes Ultimate Truth. Jeff Foster, Life Without a Centre, 2006 Total nonsense, and it's obvious that he hasn't got a clue. Too bad that he didn't meet a keen-eyed Zen Master. It reminds me of an insight I had at my first Zen retreat that led me to a completely erroneous conclusion. I challenged the teacher with my new understanding and got physically hit with his Zen stick and psychologically knocked on my butt. The same thing happened to Hakuin. Giving up the search is not the same thing as finding the truth. Too smart for his own good, he looked at the flag pole and decided not to bother with the climb.
|
|
|
Post by Reefs on Dec 13, 2021 23:12:38 GMT -5
"As you would no doubt have anticipated, I could not give a favorable review of Jeff's book 'Life without a centre'. In fact, I was tempted to 'hold it up' as an example of the extreme reductionism of neo-advaita (to the point where there is no teaching left whatsoever). But I don't want to be negative about any teacher directly, only about neo-advaita teaching in general." - Dennis Waite My sentiments exactly. When I think back over the numerous realizations that resulted in detachments from various erroneous ideas that occurred over a 15 year period for this character, I have to question the validity of many peoples' words who talk the non-dual talk but don't seem to have any real depth of understanding behind them. In my case I was particularly lucky. I was born into a supportive and loving family and never experienced the kinds of negative life events and attitudes that are pointed to with phrases like "dark night of the soul" or "pain body." A lot of people are not that lucky and could probably use some therapy for clearing out psychological baggage while traveling the ND path or even before traveling the ND path. Same here. So I can't really relate to such concepts. But I'd imagine that people who go thru or went thru such experiences may find what Jeff has to say very comforting. I remember Andrew having talking about this dark night of the soul experience and how he then spent years on the riverbank in the witnessing mode detached from what-is until he realized that's not it either. And I think Andrew shares part of Jeff's story there.
|
|
|
Post by Reefs on Dec 13, 2021 23:28:25 GMT -5
Too smart for his own good, he looked at the flag pole and decided not to bother with the climb. Good one!
|
|
|
Post by laughter on Dec 14, 2021 7:48:56 GMT -5
Too smart for his own good, he looked at the flag pole and decided not to bother with the climb. Good one! (** thumps chest in hard-earned and well-deserved non-dual pride **)
|
|
|
Post by etolle on Dec 14, 2021 8:43:27 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. can you help me understand BASED ON THE RELATIONSHIP OF TIME TO SPACE?... 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 etolle on Dec 14, 2021 8:47:43 GMT -5
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. can you help me understand BASED ON THE RELATIONSHIP OF TIME TO SPACE?... 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 ....can you help me understand BASED ON THE RELATIONSHIP OF TIME TO SPACE?......
|
|
|
Post by laughter on Dec 14, 2021 9:57:19 GMT -5
...can you help me understand BASED ON THE RELATIONSHIP OF TIME TO SPACE?...... Sure. It's a deep mental bunny warren, but going that far helped me at one time to stop digging. We perceive time and space as two different phenomenon, but Einstein demonstrated the underlying commonality: we live in a four dimensional world. There are three spatial dimensions: up-down, left-right, forward-back. There is one time dimension, past-future. Descartes helped to codify the spatial dimensions with his coordinate system, and one interesting aspect of that is that the origin is arbitrary, as is the orientation of the x,y and z axes. North and South only have meaning relative to the Earth. Out in space, there is no absolute North or South. So it is with the time dimension relative to the spatial dimensions. Which direction is the time dimension is arbitrary, and depends upon our motion relative to another observer. This is illustrated by time-dilation, like in the movie Interstellar. You can also understand it by the fact that looking out in space looks backward in time. Hubble sees the light of far-off stars as it was generated in a time long past dependent on distance. If you look across a wide open space, you don't actually see the image of a distant object as it is at the exact same moment you perceive it, but instead, as it was some very small fraction of a second defined by the speed of light. So, the reason for difference between time and space in our perception is that we live in the limit of that dimension of time where the differential between one moment and the next goes to zero. In Cartesian terms, we live on a point of the time-line, while we perceive some 3-d sphere of space surrounding that. And, which dimension is time and which of the other three is space is arbitrary, and depends on our motion relative to whatever we want to compare ourselves with. If someone passes you on a train going an appreciable fraction of the speed of light you each measure the length of a 1 foot ruler differently. This isn't just a trick of perception, but, instead, demonstrates how our perception of physicality is not really what it seems to us in terms of constancy. This is a deep dive into the Pilgrim's notion that "Only now functionally exists". This is true, in the relative, analytical sense. It's also a sort of shadow of the existential truth. As we meditate, we rest that function of our mind that re-constructs sequences of events into movies of past and future. As the mental energy devoted to those projections fades we become "present". We can describe this " presence" in these analytical terms of a greater awareness of living in that limit, of living at that "one point in time". But, the analyst has ultimately settled for pitching a tent at a rest stop. Change still happens. It's just not what the intellect - or, even intuition - makes of it. We can gain insight from this shadow as to how the mind contrives the projections of past and future. This doesn't mean that the change didn't occur, but, a conditioned false sense of identity can distort the projections. And, there is no undistorted version of these projections, even free of that false identity, because the projections are always, by their nature limited, while "what they are a projection of" is not.
We cannot analyze our way to the source of the projections, and I can only point in that direction.
|
|
|
Post by etolle on Dec 14, 2021 10:31:18 GMT -5
...can you help me understand BASED ON THE RELATIONSHIP OF TIME TO SPACE?...... Sure. It's a deep mental bunny warren, but going that far helped me at one time to stop digging. We perceive time and space as two different phenomenon, but Einstein demonstrated the underlying commonality: we live in a four dimensional world. There are three spatial dimensions: up-down, left-right, forward-back. There is one time dimension, past-future. Descartes helped to codify the spatial dimensions with his coordinate system, and one interesting aspect of that is that the origin is arbitrary, as is the orientation of the x,y and z axes. North and South only have meaning relative to the Earth. Out in space, there is no absolute North or South. So it is with the time dimension relative to the spatial dimensions. Which direction is the time dimension is arbitrary, and depends upon our motion relative to another observer. This is illustrated by time-dilation, like in the movie Interstellar. You can also understand it by the fact that looking out in space looks backward in time. Hubble sees the light of far-off stars as it was generated in a time long past dependent on distance. If you look across a wide open space, you don't actually see the image of a distant object as it is at the exact same moment you perceive it, but instead, as it was some very small fraction of a second defined by the speed of light. So, the reason for difference between time and space in our perception is that we live in the limit of that dimension of time where the differential between one moment and the next goes to zero. In Cartesian terms, we live on a point of the time-line, while we perceive some 3-d sphere of space surrounding that. And, which dimension is time and which of the other three is space is arbitrary, and depends on our motion relative to whatever we want to compare ourselves with. If someone passes you on a train going an appreciable fraction of the speed of light you each measure the length of a 1 foot ruler differently. This isn't just a trick of perception, but, instead, demonstrates how our perception of physicality is not really what it seems to us in terms of constancy. This is a deep dive into the Pilgrim's notion that "Only now functionally exists". This is true, in the relative, analytical sense. It's also a sort of shadow of the existential truth. As we meditate, we rest that function of our mind that re-constructs sequences of events into movies of past and future. As the mental energy devoted to those projections fades we become "present". We can describe this " presence" in these analytical terms of a greater awareness of living in that limit, of living at that "one point in time". But, the analyst has ultimately settled for pitching a tent at a rest stop. Change still happens. It's just not what the intellect - or, even intuition - makes of it. We can gain insight from this shadow as to how the mind contrives the projections of past and future. This doesn't mean that the change didn't occur, but, a conditioned false sense of identity can distort the projections. And, there is no undistorted version of these projections, even free of that false identity, because the projections are always, by their nature limited, while "what they are a projection of" is not.
We cannot analyze our way to the source of the projections, and I can only point in that direction.
laughter,ive got an 8th grade education...i understand presence,present moment awareness,etc, and i realize that time is somethin we have invented...other than that im lost...talk to me like you would a 1st grader please..
|
|
|
Post by zendancer on Dec 14, 2021 10:50:43 GMT -5
Sure. It's a deep mental bunny warren, but going that far helped me at one time to stop digging. We perceive time and space as two different phenomenon, but Einstein demonstrated the underlying commonality: we live in a four dimensional world. There are three spatial dimensions: up-down, left-right, forward-back. There is one time dimension, past-future. Descartes helped to codify the spatial dimensions with his coordinate system, and one interesting aspect of that is that the origin is arbitrary, as is the orientation of the x,y and z axes. North and South only have meaning relative to the Earth. Out in space, there is no absolute North or South. So it is with the time dimension relative to the spatial dimensions. Which direction is the time dimension is arbitrary, and depends upon our motion relative to another observer. This is illustrated by time-dilation, like in the movie Interstellar. You can also understand it by the fact that looking out in space looks backward in time. Hubble sees the light of far-off stars as it was generated in a time long past dependent on distance. If you look across a wide open space, you don't actually see the image of a distant object as it is at the exact same moment you perceive it, but instead, as it was some very small fraction of a second defined by the speed of light. So, the reason for difference between time and space in our perception is that we live in the limit of that dimension of time where the differential between one moment and the next goes to zero. In Cartesian terms, we live on a point of the time-line, while we perceive some 3-d sphere of space surrounding that. And, which dimension is time and which of the other three is space is arbitrary, and depends on our motion relative to whatever we want to compare ourselves with. If someone passes you on a train going an appreciable fraction of the speed of light you each measure the length of a 1 foot ruler differently. This isn't just a trick of perception, but, instead, demonstrates how our perception of physicality is not really what it seems to us in terms of constancy. This is a deep dive into the Pilgrim's notion that "Only now functionally exists". This is true, in the relative, analytical sense. It's also a sort of shadow of the existential truth. As we meditate, we rest that function of our mind that re-constructs sequences of events into movies of past and future. As the mental energy devoted to those projections fades we become "present". We can describe this " presence" in these analytical terms of a greater awareness of living in that limit, of living at that "one point in time". But, the analyst has ultimately settled for pitching a tent at a rest stop. Change still happens. It's just not what the intellect - or, even intuition - makes of it. We can gain insight from this shadow as to how the mind contrives the projections of past and future. This doesn't mean that the change didn't occur, but, a conditioned false sense of identity can distort the projections. And, there is no undistorted version of these projections, even free of that false identity, because the projections are always, by their nature limited, while "what they are a projection of" is not. We cannot analyze our way to the source of the projections, and I can only point in that direction.
laughter,ive got an 8th grade education...i understand presence,present moment awareness,etc, and i realize that time is somethin we have invented...other than that im lost...talk to me like you would a 1st grader please.. Time and space are imaginary cognitive grids just like lines of longitude and latitude. They do not exist except in imagination. Imagination is like a still camera; it cannot be taken to a dance to capture the actuality of "what is." The easiest way to appreciate the imaginary nature of all boundaries is to look at what we call a "hand, wrist, and arm." Where is the dividing line between these seemingly separate things? If you consider the issue, you'll realize that any lines that might be imagined are strictly imaginary. Whatever a hand is, it is continuous with a wrist and an arm and those "things" are continuous and totally unified with everything else in what we call "the universe." To fully understand the issue one must see through the illusion of thingness and discover the difference between what is actual and what is imaginary.
|
|
|
Post by laughter on Dec 14, 2021 12:38:30 GMT -5
Sure. It's a deep mental bunny warren, but going that far helped me at one time to stop digging. We perceive time and space as two different phenomenon, but Einstein demonstrated the underlying commonality: we live in a four dimensional world. There are three spatial dimensions: up-down, left-right, forward-back. There is one time dimension, past-future. Descartes helped to codify the spatial dimensions with his coordinate system, and one interesting aspect of that is that the origin is arbitrary, as is the orientation of the x,y and z axes. North and South only have meaning relative to the Earth. Out in space, there is no absolute North or South. So it is with the time dimension relative to the spatial dimensions. Which direction is the time dimension is arbitrary, and depends upon our motion relative to another observer. This is illustrated by time-dilation, like in the movie Interstellar. You can also understand it by the fact that looking out in space looks backward in time. Hubble sees the light of far-off stars as it was generated in a time long past dependent on distance. If you look across a wide open space, you don't actually see the image of a distant object as it is at the exact same moment you perceive it, but instead, as it was some very small fraction of a second defined by the speed of light. So, the reason for difference between time and space in our perception is that we live in the limit of that dimension of time where the differential between one moment and the next goes to zero. In Cartesian terms, we live on a point of the time-line, while we perceive some 3-d sphere of space surrounding that. And, which dimension is time and which of the other three is space is arbitrary, and depends on our motion relative to whatever we want to compare ourselves with. If someone passes you on a train going an appreciable fraction of the speed of light you each measure the length of a 1 foot ruler differently. This isn't just a trick of perception, but, instead, demonstrates how our perception of physicality is not really what it seems to us in terms of constancy. This is a deep dive into the Pilgrim's notion that "Only now functionally exists". This is true, in the relative, analytical sense. It's also a sort of shadow of the existential truth. As we meditate, we rest that function of our mind that re-constructs sequences of events into movies of past and future. As the mental energy devoted to those projections fades we become "present". We can describe this " presence" in these analytical terms of a greater awareness of living in that limit, of living at that "one point in time". But, the analyst has ultimately settled for pitching a tent at a rest stop. Change still happens. It's just not what the intellect - or, even intuition - makes of it. We can gain insight from this shadow as to how the mind contrives the projections of past and future. This doesn't mean that the change didn't occur, but, a conditioned false sense of identity can distort the projections. And, there is no undistorted version of these projections, even free of that false identity, because the projections are always, by their nature limited, while "what they are a projection of" is not. We cannot analyze our way to the source of the projections, and I can only point in that direction.
laughter,ive got an 8th grade education...i understand presence,present moment awareness,etc, and i realize that time is somethin we have invented...other than that im lost...talk to me like you would a 1st grader please.. Yes, like I said, it's a deep brain bunny hole. How is it that you know time is something that you've invented? In the same way, mind invents all of space, and every single object you perceive. That doesn't mean that change didn't happen. That doesn't mean that you and I are in the same place. It doesn't mean a fork is not a fork. It just means that none of this is the way most people think and intuit it is.
|
|