A Mind Beyond Time:
"You are just a thought"
These Jeff Foster (lifewithoutacentre.com) videos discuss the ending of the separate me, where the notion of a separate existence falls entirely away, so that you live in perpetual oneness with everything, without seeking or wanting anything. This is a life of action, not stagnation, but action arising from a mind that is not in internal conflict with what is.
It is a mind that is no longer seeking... anything. It is a mind free of biases, choice and self-centeredness. It is a mind living entirely in the present, where what is happening in the moment, where what exists in the moment, is literally all that there is.
But it is not 'ordinary' in the sense we use that word - because it is new, it is something that has not been seen before. Words are not enough.
So because of this newness, there is no longer any suffering, any despair, any hopes dashed, any sense of non-fulfillment, any depression. There is only the now. No future.
It is a mind beyond all time.
This is a 'reality' that is us and is all around us at all times but we simply cannot see it, as long as we have a center. This is because of the desire of the mind always for something more.
But what is left when the self - the center - falls away cannot be described with our current duality. It can't be explained with the words/concepts that are the very basis of the existing conceptual framework of the self-based mind.
The parallels here that exist with the very basis of what is in the talks covering over 60 years... are quite extraordinary.
"You are just a thought"
These Jeff Foster (lifewithoutacentre.com) videos discuss the ending of the separate me, where the notion of a separate existence falls entirely away, so that you live in perpetual oneness with everything, without seeking or wanting anything. This is a life of action, not stagnation, but action arising from a mind that is not in internal conflict with what is.
It is a mind that is no longer seeking... anything. It is a mind free of biases, choice and self-centeredness. It is a mind living entirely in the present, where what is happening in the moment, where what exists in the moment, is literally all that there is.
But it is not 'ordinary' in the sense we use that word - because it is new, it is something that has not been seen before. Words are not enough.
So because of this newness, there is no longer any suffering, any despair, any hopes dashed, any sense of non-fulfillment, any depression. There is only the now. No future.
It is a mind beyond all time.
This is a 'reality' that is us and is all around us at all times but we simply cannot see it, as long as we have a center. This is because of the desire of the mind always for something more.
But what is left when the self - the center - falls away cannot be described with our current duality. It can't be explained with the words/concepts that are the very basis of the existing conceptual framework of the self-based mind.
The parallels here that exist with the very basis of what is in the talks covering over 60 years... are quite extraordinary.
Site best viewed through Internet Explorer;
there are some page display issues with Chrome & Firefox
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Copyright © 2007-2010 Daniel Marks | beyondthemind.net. All Rights Reserved.
This website went online on November 22, 2007 and is being continually developed.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
"When you face the fact of what you actually are, without escaping, without naming it, without the word, then the fact becomes totally different."
(Saanen: 10th Public Talk, July 31, 1966)
~~~~~~~
“Why are we so frightened of what is? What is the good of running away if whatever we are is always there?
We may succeed in escaping, but what we are is still there, breeding conflict and misery.
Why are we so frightened of our loneliness, of our emptiness? Any activity away from what is is bound to bring sorrow
and antagonism. Conflict is the denial of what is or the running away from what is; there is no conflict other than that.
Our conflict becomes more and more complex and insoluble because we do not face what is.
There is no complexity in what is, but only in the many escapes that we seek.”
(Commentaries on Living: Series 1, 'Ambition')
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Why can’t we face the fact?
The "what is" is the fact of ourselves and the environment around us, from moment to moment. We live lives of inner conflict and resistance because we are living with 'what should be', which is an escape from the actuality of what we are. For instance, envy is an actuality in us, but as envy is not a socially acceptable thought/feeling, we are continually avoiding it in ourselves. The feeling of fear, part of the whole structure of time-thought, is also what is. An actuality is something which is not distorted by the choice and bias of the observer:
"Words are of little importance but fact is of immense significance.
Fact never brings sorrow but words covering the fact and escapes from it, do breed untold conflict and misery."
(The Notebook: page 183)
We spend our entire lives escaping from, or denying, or suppressing, the actuality of what we are. We do this because the mind doesn't want to face what it actually is. We learn this escape very early on, mostly from our parents. Logically, this avoidance can never overcome the problem, be it loneliness, violence, fear or desire. As in all other aspects of life, including the technological world, running away from a problem does not make that problem go away, it only strengthens it.
The mind runs away from what is because it is incapable of remaining with the fact without attempting to change it, or resist it. This is our conditioning: the acceptance or condemnation of the fact, as distinct from passive awareness of it. The condemnation is part of the will to overcome, to change the fact through an ideal of what we should be. To just observe the fact of what we are, from moment to moment, requires a passivity beyond the normal reactive mind; it is held that this passivity lies at the very core of awareness or observation.
The fact is paramount. You cannot go wrong if you just face it as it occurs. You can observe the mind reacting to the actuality of what you are, which is the resulting conflict in the mind, which saps energy. Here is the entire problem in a nutshell:
“Is it possible to live without any pattern, without any goal, without any idea of the future, a life without conflict?
It is only possible when one lives completely with ‘what is’. “With ‘what is’ means with that which is actually taking place. …
If you are envious, or greedy, jealous … live with them without any movement of thought that wants to move away from them.
Which means what? One is not wasting one’s energy in control, in suppression, , in conflict, in resistance, in escape. All that
energy was being wasted; now one has gathered it up. Because one sees the absurdity of it, the falseness of it … one has now
the energy to live with ‘what is’; one has that energy to observe without any movement of thought.”
(The Transformation of Man: page 148; ellipses added)
Why is thought always escaping from the actual?
Thought is always concerned with what should be rather than what is, which is the movement in time. If there were no time the mind would only be left with the fact in the present, in the now. This movement in time is comparison, which is measurement, a central activity of thought. One compares or measures one’s life with an image of what one’s life should be, or what has been, and then pursues a created image of what one wants to be, over time. The most dominant images are those held by the mass of people - such as success, money and power - for in the mass is the greatest possibility of security, based on the illusory assumption that the majority can never be wrong.
The what is is not something to be sought after. The what is is not pleasant, comforting, pleasurable, gratifying, which is why we are everlastingly escaping from it. It is also not permanent, as the fact of what we are changes in nature over time. If you realize that, stripped of your created self image, you are violent, lonely and empty then one’s thought process (which is fragmentary) will of course avoid this by pursuing a gratifying and desired image of oneself. Role models (heroes, idols, gurus) in society are all based on this desired image-making; so is all advertising, in one form or another. Self-projected ideals are what we live by.
It is this division between what is and what should be (what we really should be, or what we want to be, given time) that is behind the whole problem of living. It also extends to the past, where we compare what our past was with what we are now. All this comparison is a contradiction to what is, and all contradictions are mental conflicts, which (as stated above) sap all our critical energy:
“Contradiction exits when there is comparison; not only with something, but also comparison with what I was yesterday. And hence conflict arises between what has been and what is. There is only what is when there is no comparison at all - and to live completely with `what is', is to be peaceful. Because then you can give your whole attention to `what is' without any distraction to what is within oneself, whatever it be - despair, ugliness, brutality, fear, anxiety, loneliness, and live with, what is, completely. Then there is no contradiction and hence no conflict.
The understanding that comes only through observation of what is, is peace; which doesn't mean that you accept what is, on the contrary, one can't possibly accept this monstrous, corrupt society in which one lives, yet it is what is. But observe it, all its psychological structure, which is me, observe that me without any judgment, any evaluation - to see actually what is and as one observes the `what is', be changed completely. Therefore one can live at peace with one's wife or husband, with one's neighbor, with society, because one is oneself, daily, living a life of peace.”
(Collected Works: Volume 8, Talks in Europe, 1967)
What can we do about what is, what we actually are?
The answer is devastatingly simple (which may in itself be the issue). You can’t do anything about it, as the entity doing something about it is the same entity that has created the problem in the first place. All you can do is just observe:
Q: “... Why does one run away? What is one escaping from?"
A: “From your own loneliness, your own emptiness, from what you are. If you run away without seeing what is, you obviously cannot understand it; so first you have to stop running, escaping and only then can you watch yourself as you are. But you cannot observe what is if you are always criticizing it, if you like or dislike it. You call it loneliness and run away from it; and the very running away from what is is fear. You are afraid of this loneliness, of this emptiness, and dependence is the covering of it.
So fear is constant; it is constant as long as you are running away from what is. …
Q: Then my fear arises from my own hollowness, my insufficiency. I see that all right, and it is true; but what am I to do about it?
A: “You cannot do anything about it. Whatever you do is an activity of escape. That is the most essential thing to realize. …”
(Commentaries on Living: Series I, Chapter 75, 'Fear and Escape)
* [See below for the full quotation]
Is this where the whole talks lose us? Is this where we reach a point of refusing to listen any further? We have a resolute idea, an absolute conviction born of long conditioning and personal experience, that we have to take action - some action, any action - on what we observe in ourselves, even if this action is an avoidance of it. Moreover, action in one form or another is not action at all - it is a reaction. The very naming of what we see is a reaction and so an avoidance of it! All these reactions, because they stem from a mind that has set up all the escapes in the first place, only reinforce all the problems.
The talks are clear: all action can only take place from a mind that is quiet (silent, empty), that is no longer escaping. This action is born of “intelligence,” which is compassion. But the true nature of both this action and intelligence cannot be known as our minds are not quiet. All discussion on the exact nature of this action and intelligence is thus purely speculative, has no meaning and will not be touched on in these discussions. Is all intellectual discussion on this unknown 'intelligence' an abstraction, an escape from the real issues of our lives?
This issue of complete non-action, of total passivity to what we observe in ourselves is so foreign to everything in us that we will resist it to the bitter end. It is beyond all our thinking and conditioning and is essentially counter-intuitive. We have a deep-seated fear that if we take no action then we will be condemned forever to be in that very state which we observe, that we will stagnate in it. This is not the case. When we come face to face for the first time with the actuality then that fact, whatever it is, will be transformed. The issue is, is it not, that we have never actually come into direct contact with the actual?
What does this mean: The seeing is the doing?
The very observation is enough, it has its own action. As has been pointed out, all our action is the reaction of the self, of thought; beyond that there is only action, in the moment, but to speculate on the nature of this action has no meaning. The seeing that brings this action is only when there is no desire to judge or change that which is seen, to be completely passive to it, where the self is not:
"The ‘what is’ can only be observed when there is no me."
(The Transformation of Man: page 218)
“To transform, I must look at what is; and I am not looking at it as long as I have an ideal. If I see that, I set aside the ideal, which is non-violence, and look at violence, and then I am fully aware that I am violent; and the very fact that I am directly conscious of it brings about transformation. Experiment with it and you will see.
This refusal to see what is - that is the problem with all of us. I never want to look at what is, I never want to acknowledge that I am ugly - I always give reasons for my ugliness; but if I look at my ugliness as it is, without explanation or excuse, then there is a possibility of transformation.”
(Collected Works: Volume 5, Poona India, 7th Public Talk, October 10, 1948)
So this, then, is the central point. The whole point of seeing 'what is' comes down to the fact of observing it directly, without any reaction whatsoever, and without any attempt whatsoever to do anything about it. This is seeing without the observer, the self.
~~~~~~~~~~
* Full Quotation (see above):
Q: “...Why does one run away? What is one escaping from?
A: From your own loneliness, your own emptiness, from what you are. If you run away without seeing what is, you obviously cannot understand it; so first you have to stop running, escaping and only then can you watch yourself as you are. But you cannot observe what is if you are always criticizing it, if you like or dislike it. You call it loneliness and run away from it; and the very running away from what is is fear. You are afraid of this loneliness, of this emptiness, and dependence is the covering of it.
So fear is constant; it is constant as long as you are running away from what is. To be completely identified with something, with a person or an idea, is not a guarantee of final escape, for this fear is always in the background. It comes through dreams, when there is a break in identification; and there is always a break in identification, unless one is unbalanced.
Q: Then my fear arises from my own hollowness, my insufficiency. I see that all right, and it is true; but what am I to do about it?
A: “You cannot do anything about it. Whatever you do is an activity of escape. That is the most essential thing to realize.
Then you will see that you are not different or separate from that hollowness. You are that insufficiency. The observer is the observed emptiness. Then if you proceed further, there is no longer calling it loneliness; the terming of it has ceased. If you proceed still further, which is rather arduous, the thing known as loneliness is not; there is a complete cessation of loneliness, emptiness, of the thinker as the thought. This alone puts an end to fear.”
(Commentaries on Living: Series I, Chapter 75, 'Fear and Escape')
 |
 |
 |
“Why have human beings not faced the fact and changed the fact?”
(Pupul Jayakar Biography, Chapter 43, page 459)
(Pupul Jayakar Biography, Chapter 43, page 459)
 |
 |
 |
 |
Facing the actuality of what we are
 |
 |
 |
 |
 |
 |
 |
 |
 |
 |
(Site exploring the mind's strange resistance to the actual fact of what is happening now;
Page last updated August 20, 2010)
Page last updated August 20, 2010)
|
 |
 |
 |
 |
|
|
 |
 |
 |
 |
 |
 |
 |
 |
 |
 |
 |
 |
 |
 |
 |
 |
 |
 |
 |
 |
“We are always in conflict between what is and ‘what should be’.”
(Book of Life Daily Meditation, 'The disorder that time creates,' - March 29, 2008)
This conflict arises because we don't fully face all the facts of the present moment, without escaping in some form or another. The mind indulges in numerous subtle psychological escapes, most of which occur so swiftly we are in them before we are aware of them.
(Book of Life Daily Meditation, 'The disorder that time creates,' - March 29, 2008)
This conflict arises because we don't fully face all the facts of the present moment, without escaping in some form or another. The mind indulges in numerous subtle psychological escapes, most of which occur so swiftly we are in them before we are aware of them.
The facts that exist in the moment are what is. They cannot be denied. When we deny or escape from them - believing they should be other than what they are - all our problems and fears begin. Suffering is in the movement of 'what should be.' If you accept all the facts of the present there is no psychic pain. It really is that simple.